preview

Business Law

Satisfactory Essays

| 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

Get Access