Law Notes > Univerity Of Otago Law Notes > LAWS202 Law of Contract Notes

Exclusion Incorporation Notes

This is a sample of our (approximately) 3 page long Exclusion Incorporation notes, which we sell as part of the LAWS202 Law of Contract Notes collection, a 85-90% package written at Univerity Of Otago in 2010 that contains (approximately) 68 pages of notes across 20 different documents.

Learn more about our LAWS202 Law of Contract Notes

Exclusion Incorporation Revision

The following is a plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our LAWS202 Law of Contract Notes. This text version has had its formatting removed so pay attention to its contents alone rather than its presentation. The version you download will have its original formatting intact and so will be much prettier to look at.

Exclusion - Incorporation Thursday, 9 September 2010 4:18 p.m.

Exclusion clause incorporated?

Signed contract

Unsigned contract

Misrep, duress, undue influence, fraud? - Curtis Situation where not signature not reasonably expected to be binding? - Toll Documents signed not objectively intended to incorporate clause?
- Nalder & Biddle

Yes Not incorporated

Actual knowledge

Clause applies Parker v South Eastern Rly

No Incorporated (notwithstanding not actually being read) - Graucob

Reasonable notice

• Reference Thompson v Midland Limit: onerous clauses require 'red hand' - Thornton, Interfoto

• Trade custom British Crane Hire Limit: same industry, equal bargaining power

• Previous dealing Seven Electrical Limit: must be consistent
- McCutcheon

Statutory attempts to thwart exclusion clauses: Consumer Guarantees Act 1993
○ S 43(1) - The Act applies despite attempts to limit/exclude their liability for breach of statutory warranty
○ S 43(2) - Supplier/manufacturer may contract out if
 goods/services are supplied "for purposes of business",
 but only in writing.
○ Section 2
 Goods - very wide. Includes animals, trees, vehicles but NOT buildings.
 Services - very wide - performance of work, accommodation, care.
 "In trade" = Fair Trading Act 1986
 Consumer - two step definition 1) Acquires goods/services of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal/domestic/household use/consumption AND 2) Does not acquire them to resell in trade, or consume them in process of production/manufacture.
 Nesbit v Porter [2000] CA - even if only a small proportion of sales are for personal use, can still fall under section 2.
○ Guarantees for goods
 S 5 - that the buyer receives good title
 S 6 - that goods are of 'acceptable quality' (defined in s 7)
 S 8 - that if goods are bought for particular purpose which supplier knows of, they are fit for that purpose.
 S 14 - if manufacturer makes an express guarantee about a good, they are bound by it.
○ Remedies against suppliers of goods who breach guarantees
 S 18 - Demand supplier remedies within a reasonable amount of time.
□ If not, can gave failure remedied elsewhere at supplier's expense OR
□ Reject goods (s 22) and get a refund/replacement.
 If failure cannot be remedied or is of a substantial character (s 21)
□ Can reject goods (s 22), get a refund/replacement (s 23)or get compensation for reduced value.
 Any reasonably foreseeable loss/damage due to failure is claimable by consumer.
○ Guarantees for supply of services
 S 28 - carried out with "reasonable care and skill"
 S 29 - reaasoanbly fit for any particular purpose, reasonably expected to achieve the particular result the consumer required
 S 30 - completed in a 'reasonable time' (unless contract specifies dates)
○ Remedies against supplier of services where they breach guarantee
 S 32 - demand supplier remedy failure in reasonable amount of time.
□ If not, may cancel contract (s 37) or have failure remedied elsewhere and charge supplier.
○ Signed documents remedied, or is of substantial character (s 36), consumer can cancel contract (s 37) or get compensation for reduced value.
□ If failure cannot be
 Clause applies
□ In addition, damages for any reasonably foreseeable loss resulting from failure.
□ occurs if consumer
 S 37 - cancellationToll v Alphapharm lets supplier of service know, or does all they can to let them no, that they intend to cancel.
□ L'Estrange v Graucob [1934] can 394
 S 38 - where a contract is cancelled, consumer 2 KBge refund for money, need not pay more. Can still sue for breach of contract.
□ Nalder & Biddle v C & F Fishing (actual contract incorporating clauses must be signed)
 Exceptions: Contractual Remedies Act 1979
□ General rule is a presumption, not an absolute rule. So could prove you have not accepted the clause or didn't know it was there. Section 4 (1) Exclusion provisions □ Can avoid if you can Courts from inquiring into whether purporting to preclude show misrepresentation is inconsistent with the clause, or undue influence, duress etc.
 Curtis v Chemical Cleaning [1951] (misrep) (a) A statement/promise was made/given in negotiations leading to contract
□ Or where the other party could not reasonably expect the other to be bound by a signature - Toll v Alphapharm p9 (b) Contract Page 27

****************************End Of Sample*****************************

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our LAWS202 Law of Contract Notes.