| Question: Search and explain FIVE (5) reported Malaysian cases on the following topics: (i) Incorporation of exclusion or limitation clauses (ii) Construction of exclusion or limitation clausesThe explanation includes the issue and the decision made by the courts in these cases.Students are not allowed to rely on any cases which are found in the lecture materials.(10 marks) | Part A Answer: Exclusion clause is defined as provision in a contract under which one party is protected from being sued by other party for its liabilities are severely restricted. It is also known as limitation clause. Incorporation and construction of exclusion clauses are two types of the exclusion clause. Firstly, incorporation of exclusion clause cannot …show more content…
The receipt for the rental of another car too could easily have been marked as an exhibit. The court held that the appellant was able to claim for the costs of repairs at RM3, 630.85; costs of hiring another car for one month at RM1, 790; and costs of engaging an adjuster at RM169. However, the claim for depreciation at 25% was disallowed as there was no evidence to support such a rate of depreciation. Depreciation occurs regardless of whether there has been an accident or not, the only difference is the rate of depreciation which in this case was not proved. Interest on all sums allowed was awarded at 8%p.a. from the date of damage to date of payment. Sekawan Guards Sdn Bhd v Thong Guan Sdn Bhd [1995] 1 MLJ 811(Appendix: page 4), is another case of incorporation of exclusion or limitation clauses. It is a writing contract, the appellant ('Sekawan') agreed to provide security services at the premises of the respondent ('Thong Guan'). A theft occurred at the premises, resulting in the loss of Thong Guan's goods. Thong Guan sued Sekawan for breach of contract and, alternatively, negligence. Sekawan relied on an exemption clause in the contract which provided that it was not liable for any loss suffered by Thong Guan unless the loss was solely caused by the negligence of Sekawan's employee. Sekawan argued that the loss was in fact caused by the
Mary McDonald, an 86-year-old woman, was frequently complaining about the high cost of maintenance of her house and high property taxes. She decided to cancel her fire insurance to reduce expenses. Mary’s daughter was aware of her mother’s concern about the property, and she took Mary to the lawyer’s office to sign some papers that would protect her mother. When Mary came to the lawyer’s office, she was advised that the paper she was going to sign was the deed to the property. Mary signed a document. Later on, when the municipal tax bill arrived, Mary McDonald was really surprised to see that the property was in her daughter’s name.
Dixon did not meet the standard of care. Meaning he is a part of the blame. The clause did not excuse the defendant's
10. Dan hires Eve to perform at Dan 's Club, but Eve later breaches the agreement to accept a higher-paying job at First Star Arena. Dan files a suit gainst Eve. The court will most likley: award damages to Dan.
Analyze Luxford & Anor v Sidhu & 3 others [2007] NSWSC 1356 (3 December 2007) as follows:
40. Principle of Law: In this case, Esposito hired Excel Construction Company to repair a porch roof. All terms of the agreement were specified in a written contract. And the dispute occurred when Excel had repaired the rear porch roof because in the agreement failed to specify whether it was the front or rear porch that needed repair. Under civil law, two parties here had signed a civil contract in writing. Because the contract failed to specify clearly front or rear porch roof, Excel completed its obligation and didn’t break the contract.
1. Able entered into an oral contract with Baker for the sale of Able 's car for $5,000. Later Baker breached that contract. Able wants to sue to enforce the contract. Under the Statute of Frauds, who is the "party to be charged" in this case?
Whereas, the District’s participation in this Agreement is not an admission of liability but is an attempt to bring closure to disputed issues; and
Mercedes Connolly and her husband purchased airline tickets and a tour package for a tour to South Africa from Judy Samuelson, a travel agent doing business as International Tours of Manhattan. Samuelson sold tickets for a variety of airline companies and tour operators, including African Adventurers, which was the tour operator for the Connollys’ tour. Mercedes and injured her left ankle and foot. She sued Samuelson for damages. Is Samuelson liable?
A dealer sold a new car to Raymond Smith. The sales contract contained language expressly disclaiming liability for personal injuries caused as a result of defects in the car and limiting the remedy for breach of warranty to repair or replacement of the defective part. One month after purchasing the auto, Smith was seriously injured when the car veered off the road and into a ditch as a result of a defect in the steering mechanism of the car.
There is a literal conflict between the state and the federal measures, so that it is impossible to follow both simultaneously.
This paper examines the development and scope of accessory liability under the second limb of Barnes v Addy as it stands in both England and Australia. As to the law in England, the focus will be on the rearticulation of the principle of accessory liability under the second limb as stated in Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan. In particular, it will consider the extent to which the decision has reconciled inconsistencies in earlier authority and remedied those issues propounded to be inherent in the traditional formulation of the principle. At this stage, this traditional principle remains good law in Australia. However, as suggested in Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd, there is potential for the
Elizabeth Blackwell showed herself as a dedicated and diligent doctor during five years of work in Neurological Associates, and made a significant contribution to the profit margin of the partnership. The partners were delighted with hiring Blackwell in 2005 and they introduced her to medical physicians at a conference. But the referral base Blackwell went through was not the result of that investment by the partnership but instead it was the evidence of her professionalism in neurological sphere.
There was no defence for defendant because there was no any voluntary assumption and contributory negligence by the plaintiff. Plaintiff didn’t fully understood and took the risk by himself and not even he contributed himself to take that injury.
Section 12(2) of the act defines a condition as “a stipulation essential to the main purpose of the contract, the breach of which gives rise to a right to treat the contract as repudiated.” Conditions is called an ‘express condition’ when a condition is expressed clearly in writing. A condition is a stipulation essential to the main purpose of the contract. It is very vital to the
Mrs. Turner has decided to start her own business running a private day nursery. It is