Warranties Are An Important Contract Term

The Civil Liabilities Act 2002 defines negligence as a failure on the part of the defendant which results in the harm of the plaintiff which could have been prevented by taking reasonable care. The breach of duty must be foreseeable, Sullivan v Moody. The risk must be not insignificant, and a reasonable person under similar circumstances would have taken precaution against the harm. In this case

There are two defences to an action in negligence: contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risk. (FoBL, 2005, p83) This case only involves contributory negligence.

The breach of the warranty is that the A/C was defective due to a design defect, and the manufacture is liable for the harm it cause to Lake

One of the principal grounds for rejecting insurance claims is that the claim is not covered by the terms of the policy, or is specifically excluded. The rule that coverage provisions should be interpreted broadly and exclusion clauses should be interpreted narrowly is really just a corollary of the Contra Proferentem rule which applies in the event of ambiguity i.e. it is the insurer who likely drafted the insurance contract and construing coverage provisions broadly, or exclusion clauses narrowly, will be to the detriment of the insurer as the party who drafted the contract. The construction of exclusion clauses and coverage provisions helps justify the objective intention of the contract. This is the intention which the court considers, a reasonable person in the position of the contracting parties, would have had. It is submitted that coverage provisions should be broad and encompassing and exclusion clauses should be narrow. However, before such a conclusion is reached, this paper will aim to justify the reasoning behind such a claim analysing arguments for and against such a proposition, drawing upon the landmark case Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd to help relate the discussion to issues raised by such considerations.

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.

Coverage: Appears to be proper. Insured has no PUP. Only an active Homeowners and Auto. Loss occurred on named insured property and the named insured is the responsible party. The lawn mower is under the 40hp exclusion, mower is 14hp.

“An insurance company has a duty to act in good faith in settling claims and a breach of that duty will give rise to a cause of action by the insured. That duty, however, runs only from the insurer to the insured, not to third parties.” Id. at page 5.

Under common law, the most important remedy was a suit for breach of warranty against those who sold unfit goods.

Insurances The contract allows either the contractor or the owner to insure. Provision is also made for one party to take out and maintain the insurance where the nominated party fails to do so or fails to provide acceptable evidence that the insurance in is place

9. “Insurance” means a contract that provides that for a stipulated consideration, one party undertakes to indemnify another against loss, damage, or liability arising from an unknown or contingent event.

This case illustrates the presence of conditions precedent, implied conditions, substantial performance, and breach of contract (material).

The insurance clause allows the insurer to not allow policy renewal under certain conditions. Condition update policies can be updated unless the conditions described in the policy.

Whitlams has an obligation under s22 ICA to clearly inform Tony of the nature and effect of this duty of disclosure in writing prior to the contract of insurance being entered into. On the facts presented Whitlams have done this with the requisite clarity: with headings appearing in upper case so as to draw attention to them; the content summarising the relevant statutory provisions including consequences of failure to comply; and otherwise contained as part of the

b) From the perspective of GE Oil and Gas, a product it sells under warranty represents a potential loss of the amount of the warranty. It also reflects the company's willingness to guarantee the quality of its product. In the case of the telescopic joint, this would mean $2,000 per product sold. From the perspective of BP as purchaser of the product, the warranty represents protection against potential financial loss incurred as a result of product failure.

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