Exclusion Clauses
These notes look at the exclusion clause which completely excludes liability whereas the limitation clause only seeks to limit liability to a specific sum. Both are known as exemption clauses. These notes examine the general principles and the cases that unpin, the exclusion clauses and limitation clauses. Each case is presented as concise summary giving the student the working ability to quickly understand the facts that are important. Followed by the ratio of the case and the reason why decision was arrived at and how the case creates the general principle. There is also commentary on how the case should be applied when giving advice.
Cases
Signature
L'Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394, CA
Timing
Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877) LR 2 CPD 416, CA
Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel (1949) 1 KB 532
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 1 All ER 686, CA
Form
Thompson v LMS [1930] 1 KB 41, CA
Chapelton v Barry UDC [1940] 1 All ER 356, CA
Effect
Interfoto v Stiletto [1988] 1 All ER 348, CA
Previous Course of Dealing
Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 2 All ER 121, CA
Contra Proferentem rule
White v Warwick [1953] 2 All ER 1021, CA
Houghton v Trafalgar Insurance [1953] 2 All ER 1409, CA
Contra Proferentem rule and exclusion clause
Ailsa Craig v Malvern [1983] 1 All ER 101, HL
Dealing as a Consumer
R & B Customs Brokers v UDT [1988] 1 All ER 847, CA
Exclusion and Personal Injury
Thompson v Lohan [1987] 2 All ER 631, CA
Reasonableness Test
Woodman v Photo Trade Processing (1981) 131 NLJ 933
Smith v Eric Bush [1989] 2 All ER 514, HL
These notes look at the exclusion clause which completely excludes liability whereas the limitation clause only seeks to limit liability to a specific sum. Both are known as exemption clauses. These notes examine the general principles and the cases that unpin, the exclusion clauses and limitation clauses. Each case is presented as concise summary giving the student the working ability to quickly understand the facts that are important. Followed by the ratio of the case and the reason why decision was arrived at and how the case creates the general principle. There is also commentary on how the case should be applied when giving advice.
Cases
Signature
L'Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394, CA
Timing
Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877) LR 2 CPD 416, CA
Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel (1949) 1 KB 532
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 1 All ER 686, CA
Form
Thompson v LMS [1930] 1 KB 41, CA
Chapelton v Barry UDC [1940] 1 All ER 356, CA
Effect
Interfoto v Stiletto [1988] 1 All ER 348, CA
Previous Course of Dealing
Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 2 All ER 121, CA
Contra Proferentem rule
White v Warwick [1953] 2 All ER 1021, CA
Houghton v Trafalgar Insurance [1953] 2 All ER 1409, CA
Contra Proferentem rule and exclusion clause
Ailsa Craig v Malvern [1983] 1 All ER 101, HL
Dealing as a Consumer
R & B Customs Brokers v UDT [1988] 1 All ER 847, CA
Exclusion and Personal Injury
Thompson v Lohan [1987] 2 All ER 631, CA
Reasonableness Test
Woodman v Photo Trade Processing (1981) 131 NLJ 933
Smith v Eric Bush [1989] 2 All ER 514, HL
These notes look at the exclusion clause which completely excludes liability whereas the limitation clause only seeks to limit liability to a specific sum. Both are known as exemption clauses. These notes examine the general principles and the cases that unpin, the exclusion clauses and limitation clauses. Each case is presented as concise summary giving the student the working ability to quickly understand the facts that are important. Followed by the ratio of the case and the reason why decision was arrived at and how the case creates the general principle. There is also commentary on how the case should be applied when giving advice.
Cases
Signature
L'Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394, CA
Timing
Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877) LR 2 CPD 416, CA
Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel (1949) 1 KB 532
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 1 All ER 686, CA
Form
Thompson v LMS [1930] 1 KB 41, CA
Chapelton v Barry UDC [1940] 1 All ER 356, CA
Effect
Interfoto v Stiletto [1988] 1 All ER 348, CA
Previous Course of Dealing
Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 2 All ER 121, CA
Contra Proferentem rule
White v Warwick [1953] 2 All ER 1021, CA
Houghton v Trafalgar Insurance [1953] 2 All ER 1409, CA
Contra Proferentem rule and exclusion clause
Ailsa Craig v Malvern [1983] 1 All ER 101, HL
Dealing as a Consumer
R & B Customs Brokers v UDT [1988] 1 All ER 847, CA
Exclusion and Personal Injury
Thompson v Lohan [1987] 2 All ER 631, CA
Reasonableness Test
Woodman v Photo Trade Processing (1981) 131 NLJ 933
Smith v Eric Bush [1989] 2 All ER 514, HL