ipl-logo

Contract Between Aaron And Efg Pte Ltd

795 Words4 Pages

Introduction
The central issue in this case was whether the exclusion clause was being successfully incorporated into the contract between Aaron and EFG Pte Ltd (“EFG”).
Exclusion Clause
An exclusion clause is a term that seeks to exclude or limit liability between parties in the event of contractual breach. It should be incorporated by signature [L’Estrange v Graucob (1934)], by notice [Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd (1949)] or by previous course of dealing [La Rosa v Nudrill Pty Ltd (2013)]. The clause has to be implied or expressed to the contracting party before or at the time where the contract was concluded. In Aaron’s case, the timing of forming the contract was vital. Aaron may argue that the exclusion clause was not incorporated in …show more content…

As a result, the clause was not enforceable since the notice was seen in the guest room after the contract has made. In Aaron’s case, the term “EFG Pte Ltd shall not be liable for any loss or damage however caused to customers’ premises” was printed on the delivery note. It has handed over with the equipment to Aaron from EFG. And also, the clause was written on the back of the invoice by EFG and sent to Aaron after the equipment was delivered. In this scenario, the clause has brought to Aaron before and at the time when the contract was concluded. Therefore, Aaron was bound by the clause.
However, Lord Denning outlines that a reasonable notice should be brought to the attention of the contracting party. In the case of Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking, the offer and acceptance took place at the ticket machine. Lord Denning held that the clause was not incorporated into the contract since it brought to the attention of Thornton after the acceptance has made by him. In order to enforce the clause, the notice has to be drawn to the attention in an unequivocal way. Lord Denning reiterated that the clause is necessarily being printed in red ink with a red hand pointing …show more content…

Aaron hired the equipment as a consumer to refurbish his office premise. He was not dealing with this nature of business. Under UCTA, the exclusion clause was void to exclude the liability for personal injury due to negligence.
Minor injuries were caused to Aaron due to negligence maintenance by EFG. Hence, Aaron was not bound by the clause, and he can claim for his personal injury damage. The damages caused to Aaron’s new car cannot be excluded as it was not part of his premises [McCutcheon v David MacBrayne (1964)]. The claim for damages caused to his premises has to rely upon whether the clause was being incorporated in a fair and reasonable way (George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds [1983]). The court may consider the bargaining position of both parties. Aaron and EFG were deemed to have equal bargaining power since both of them were in business. However, Aaron may have more bargaining power since he hired the equipment as a consumer, not in the course of business.
To conclude, Aaron may apply the doctrine of fundamental breach, and therefore extinguished the clause (Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980]). Aaron would require more cost to renovate his office, and his business was adversely affected. As a result, EFG may liable for the total damages caused to

Show More
Related
1048 Words | 5 Pages

Name: Patel Mukeshkumar Paper # JANET M. TURNER, Appellant v. HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA Word Count: _______ I. Citation: Turner v. Hershey Chocolate USA, 440 F.3d 604 [3d Cir. 2006] II. Issue and Rule: The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s disability claim. The appellant’s essential accommodation claim went to trial, but court excluded evidence regarding disability.

Read More
541 Words | 3 Pages

Clawson stated that when he initially got into the vehicle being driven by Mr. Lopez, the barrels had already been placed in the bed of the truck. Mr. Clawson was on his phone and not paying attention to what was going on at the time of the incident. It wasn’t until after Mr. Lopez pulled his vehicle over to the highway’s shoulder that Mr. Clawson became aware of what happened. He did not observe the Plaintiff’s vehicle until the time the Plaintiff pulled the vehicle over to the highway’s shoulder. Mr. Clawson stated that after the incident, the Plaintiff did not complain of any physical injuries and seemed mostly concerned that he may be held responsible for any damage that may have occurred to his employer’s

Read More
517 Words | 3 Pages

Read Case 10-2, Welge v. Planters Lifesavers, on page 243. What theory of liability did Justice Posner use in finding the defendant liable? Judge Posner used the strict product liability theory in finding the defendant liable (Herron, 2011). Under the strict product liability theory, K-Mart (seller) would be held liable for defects in their products even if those defects were not introduced by them; also for failing to discover them during production (Herron, 2011).

Read More
1045 Words | 5 Pages

Name: Patel Mukeshkumar Paper # JANET M. TURNER, Appellant v. HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA Word Count: _______ I. Citation: Turner v. Hershey Chocolate USA, 440 F.3d 604 [3d Cir. 2006] II. Issue and Rule: The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s disability claim. The appellant’s essential accommodation claim went to trial, but court excluded evidence regarding disability.

Read More
865 Words | 4 Pages

Jim and Laura perform to their commitment of the agreement. For their situation, Stan did not respect his piece of the agreement by not discounting their cash when the choice was not to buy the auto. Stan additionally committed a few errors since he said," the store was intended to be a piece of the agreement to buy the auto". Stan knew he was in an agreement since he let it be known. Stan additionally utilized "signified" since he knew he didn't talk about that part already with Jim and Laura.

Read More
1155 Words | 5 Pages

The court will likely rule ETS breached its contract with Dalton by not following its own stipulated process of appeal. If the court finds ETS did not act in good faith, then Dalton may petition for a remedy of specific

Read More
857 Words | 4 Pages

In conclusion, the question of whether Ingersoll-Rand was liable for the accusations posed by Cole Electric is laid out in the lease agreements themselves. Of course, Ingersoll-Rand was liable for the deficiency in the express warranty but the implied warranties were covered when in paragraph

Read More
645 Words | 3 Pages

The exclusionary rule was first established in the case of Weeks v. United States in 1914. During the trial, the Supreme Court ruled that the evidence obtained by the law enforcement officer was in violation of the Fourth Amendment and will be inadmissible in federal courts. This rule later became effective in the state courts in 1961 due to the unlawful search of Mrs. Mapp’s house in the case of Mapp v. Ohio. As a result of this case, Mrs. Mapp was convicted for possession of obscene materials but later argued that the law enforcement officer could not use the materials in the trial because they were obtained without a warrant. Although the exclusionary rule is not an independent constitutional right, it serves many purposes such as aiding in the deterrence of police misconduct and providing solutions to defendants whose

Read More
950 Words | 4 Pages

This Parol evidence rule, which has been considered as a common law rule, prevent the parties to the written contract from providing any additional extrinsic evidence, which reveals an ambiguity and refines it, in addition to the terms prescribed in the written contract which appears as complete. The supporting justification to this rule is that since the parties to the contract have signed a final written contract, the extrinsic evidence of the terms and agreements held before should not be taken into consideration while construing the contract, as the contracting parties had already excluded them from the contract. In simple words, one may follow this common law rule to avoid any contradiction with the written contract.

Read More
234 Words | 1 Pages

Under that rule, `an acceptance must be coextensive with the offer and may not introduce additional terms or conditions.” (McLaughlin v. Heikkila 2005) The offeree in this case McLaughlin did not sign, or write an acceptance letter to the counteroffer Hekkila

Read More
428 Words | 2 Pages

The Exclusionary Rule is an important constitutional principle of modern criminal procedure law in the United States. Generally, it prohibits the summary at criminal trial of any evidence seized or otherwise obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Under the Exclusionary Rule, unsuitably obtained evidence that leads to the subsequent discovery of other incriminating evidence automatically invalidates or "poisons" the newly discovered derivative evidence in the same way that a poisonous tree taints the fruits growing on any of its branches. While it stems from the Fourth Amendment, it is not actually enclosed anywhere within the text of the Constitution or its Amendments. In fact, it was judicially shaped more than a century after the Constitution was approved in 1789 and the Fourth Amendment

Read More
451 Words | 2 Pages

Deals Co. v. Mainland Motors Corp., 40 Mich. Application. 270, 198 N.W.2d 757 (1972) (defendant corporation which allegedly did not honor agreement had burden of raising statute of frauds

Read More
649 Words | 3 Pages

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 8A (Intent means “the actor desires to cause consequences of his act, or that he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it.”). Critically, exclusion 2(a) only applies when the actor has the subjective knowledge that his conduct will inflict “personal injury.” In the present complaint, if Gil acted intentionally, then he would have harbored such a subjective intent.

Read More
1588 Words | 7 Pages

Exclusionary Rule, states that if any evidence is illegally obtain for any case cannot be used in court. The case of “Weeks VS United States” is one example of how the exclusionary rule works. (Explain the case) I personally think rule goes well in hand with the fourth amendment. But with the exclusionary rule some would say that it cancels out the Patriot act.

Read More
969 Words | 4 Pages

Summary Dura (Aust) Constructions Pty Ltd v Hue Boutique Living Pty Ltd6 • To be valid, a show cause notice must comply with the requirements of the contract under which it is issued and convey to the reader what is amiss. • Detailed particulars are not necessarily required for a valid show cause notice. • The level of detail required in a show cause notice depends on a number of factors including the type of breach and the response to be given by the contractor. More detail would be required for a self-executing notice to rectify (which is not a concept found in AS 2124). • In Victoria, courts are unlikely to imply a term of reasonableness when issuing a show cause notice or evaluating whether cause has been shown.

Read More

More about Contract Between Aaron And Efg Pte Ltd

Related Topics

Open Document