LEGT 1710 BUSINESS LAW – ASSIGNMENT 2
Vincent is demanding compensation from Claude for the damages incurred from the paints provided. Claude, however, refuses this claim by arguing that he is protected by an exclusion clause – the words on the receipt and sign. Given that negligence was apparent and that the exclusion clause did not fall foul of any statutory regulations; whether Vincent will be successful in his claim, ultimately lies in the question was Vincent bound by the words on the receipt or sign?. To reach a conclusion regarding this issue, it is necessary to examine the following legal matters raised:
1. 2. 3. 2
Are these words considered to have contractual effect?
Were the damages that…show more content… 15
Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd (1953), the sale and therefore the contract was taken to be made at the point where the shop accepted the offer from the customer. However in the cases of ticket machines, Lord Denning commented
that “the issue of this ticket was regarded as an offer…if the customer took it and retained it without objection, his act was regarded as an acceptance of the offer” - Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971).
As such, the point of acceptance by Claude is taken to be the time when the contract was made.
A reasonable person
would agree, the receipt handed over by Claude would have taken place after the payment was accepted and therefore the clause was introduced in a belated manner – as the judges in the previously mentioned case Thornton v Shoe Land Parking (1971) inferred notice of the exclusion clause should have been given before the ticket was issued.
Consequently, Claude‟s only hope of being protected lies within the clause printed on the sign at the counter. To be effectively exempt of any of Vincent‟s claims, Claude must prove that Vincent knew of this clause or that reasonable notice was given prior to the contract being made.
What constitutes “reasonable notice” is a question of the facts.
However, as stated