Kati V Eastfield Shopping Centre

1401 Words6 Pages
Kati v Eastfield Shopping Centre Introduction Kati has suffered loss and damages while her vehicle was under the liability of Eastfield Shopping Centre (ESC). After returning from shopping, Kati returned to the valet carpark only to find that her car had been flooded. However, Kati refuses to pay any fees to ESC and is currently seeking legal advice on any actions that she can take. Whether or not Kati can take legal action is dependent on there already being a contract between her and ESC and for ESC to have breached the contract. If so, then the main issue of concern is whether Kati will still be required to pay the administration fees as well as the repairs to her car. For Kati to be successful and not pay, ESC’s exclusion clause will…show more content…
Kati has suffered damages to her vehicle from a natural disaster, which occurred under ESC’s liability. This issue is much different as opposed to ‘LOSS OR THEFT’, which was specified by ESC in the exclusion clause. Potentially ESC could choose to argue that the clause should be interpreted using Noscitur a sociss. Doing so may allow ESC to include damages within the exclusion clause and avoid being held liable to repair Kati’s car. However, Kati argument is still effective as it asserts that the exclusion clause did not specifically cover the breach of liability that occurred to her vehicle. This is a valid argument in Kati’s favour as courts commonly interpret exclusion clauses according to their natural and ordinary meaning, as demonstrated in Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd. It will also be difficult for ESC to prove that their clause does cover them for damages as during cases of ambiguity, the exclusion clause will be construed against the party relying on the clause. As a result, the clause will be interpreted in Kati’s favour which makes her argument much more compelling. Together, all these factors make ESC’s argument much harder to justify against Kati’s claim, especially since the clause will only cover a breach that has occurred within the scope of a contract, see Council of the City of Sydney v West. In conclusion, it
Open Document