When incorporating an exclusion clause, clarity is required. Lord Morton in Canada Steamship lines Ltd v The King (1952) set out three rules; rule (1) being ‘If the clause contains language which expressly exempts the party seeking to rely on the clause . . . effect will be given to that provision.’ The language used in clause 35 above seems to satisfy this but if it were found not to be satisfying; the clause must then satisfy both the second and third rule, before it can exclude liability. If uncertainty in present in the description of the exclusion clause the contra proferentem rule would apply, this involves the ambiguity being
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
The area of law to be discussed would be implied 'terms of a contract which are not agreed by the parties.' They are terms which are related to 'contingencies which might affect the contract of employment in this case.' This is what 'parties intended but left unwritten in the gap of a contract.' There are five conditions by which a contract would be satisfied before a term would be implied. They are 'reasonable and equitable, necessary to give business efficacy so no term will be implied if
Contracts are an important part of everyday life. They are an essential part of business. As a student of a business law class, I will discuss in this paper several aspects of contracts. This paper will give a definition of a contract and the essential elements necessary to form a valid contract. It will briefly discuss breach of contract and the difference between a material breach and a nonmaterial breach of contract. Examples of legal and equitable remedies available for breach of contracts will be highlighted. Also, legal excuses for nonperformance or other grounds for discharge of contracts will be addressed. Finally, three types of common contracts personally and professionally encountered will be mentioned.
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.
6) corresponds within the purview of an implied contract. To alleviate the organization’s liability against a wrongful termination lawsuit based on the implied contract exception, the organization needs an unambiguous disclaimer stating that those documents do not create contractual rights for Phil and Terry.
G. Indemnification of Attorney Fees and out-of-pocket costs. Should any party materially breach this agreement (including representations and warranties made to the other side), the non-breaching party shall be indemnified by the breaching party for its reasonable attorney fees and out-of-pocket costs which in any way relate to, or were precipitated by, the breach of this contract (including the breach of representations or warranties). This provision shall not limit in any way the
5. Could BTT avoid this contract under the doctrine of mistake? Explain. Would either party have any other defenses that would allow the contract to be avoided?