Exclusion clauses

• Exclusion clause


  A term in a contract that prevents one party being liable for a breach of a contract
• common law controls 


  • a clause in a contract that seeks either to limit or exclude liability for breaches of the contract, is subject to all of the normal rules regarding terms, particularly those concerning incorporation of the term.
  • There are three matters to consider:
  • whether the agreement is signed whether any notice with the term in it is incorporated in the contract
  • whether the term is incorporated as a result of the previous dealings of the parties.
• Whether the agreement is signed

  L Estrange v Graucob:

  • Facts: Mrs L'Estrange purchased a cigarette vending machine from the defendant, signing a contract that excluded implied conditions and warranties. The machine malfunctioned, and Mrs L'Estrange relied on the implied term.
  • LP: Where a party has signed a written agreement, he or she is bound by that agreement
• Curtis v chemical engineer cleaning and dyeing:


  • Facts: Mrs. Curtis signed a document exempting cleaners from liability for damage to her wedding dress, but upon returning it, it had a large stain.
  • LP: The cleaners could not rely on the exclusion clause because of the oral explanation made to Mrs Curtis that they were only excluding liability for damage to beads and sequins
• Whether any notice with the term in it is incorporated in the contract by reasonable notice

  Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel:

  • F: The claimants entered a hotel, formed a contract, and left their key at reception. Someone stole their belongings while they were away.
  • LP: Whether exclusion clauses are only incorporated into a contract requires the party subject to the clause to know of the clause at the time the contract was made
• Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council 


  • F: Mr. Chapleton hired two deckchairs at Barry Island's beach and received two tickets from the council's attendant. The tickets stated the council's liability for accidents or damage, but Mr. Chapleton did not read them, leading to a defective chair that collapsed and injured him.
  • LP: It was unreasonable to assume that Mr Chapelton would automatically understand that the ticket was a contractual document, and the council was liable for his injuries
• Thompson v LMS Railway


  F: mr Thompson was illiterate and could not read went on a railway excursion, was given a ticket with words, ‘excursion: for conditions see back’

  Lp: common knowledge that railway journeys were contracts and that there were terms of carriage involved
• Thornton v shoe lane parking:

  • F: The claimant was injured in a defendants' car park, where a ticket issued by a machine indicated parking was at the owner's risk and subject to the issued conditions.
  • LP: the customer is bound by the terms of the contract as he can assume that all the terms of the contract as he an assume that all terms are set out in the first notice as in chapelton v barry urban district council