Exclusion Clause In Business Law

D.) The final case that Abigail would need to look at is the fact that Fixit included an exclusion clause within their contract with Abigail. And because of this clause to what extent can Abigail claim damages for the poor work completed by them. An exclusion clause is a term within a contract a contract which seeks to exclude or restrict liability or legal duty which would otherwise arise1. This is seen within Abigail’s contract by ‘We will accept…on client’s premises’. For me to be able to advise Abigail on her possibly actions, I would need to inform her on how exclusion clauses in law are legal. Which is a 3-part test. 1. The clause must be properly incorporated within the contract 2. The clause must be properly interpreted by both parties

I would say the fact that they have attempted to prevent any payment of damages during the work and for an indefinite amount of time after the work is unreasonable, and therefore this would be in direct contention with S2(2) of the act7 and mean that the exclusion clause would not be legal. I would also say that they have not expressly restricted their own negligence in the clause that was included in the contract they just cover the cost incurred by the client and do not expressly state exclusion of their own negligence which causes the damages that may occur, the exact word loss of profit to me is like the phrase ‘loss whatsoever’ which isn’t included as giving expressed notice8 and therefore this clause would not only fail the broader exclusion clause test but would also fall at the test which is included in exclusion clauses for negligence

For part (i) of Abigail’s claim I would say this would suggest the use of expectation interest rather than just a plain breach claim, which means as far as money can, Abigail is to be placed in a situation, as though the contract was properly performed11. This means that as the counter and the door was ‘unprofessionally’ Fixit should have to pay for the adjustments as if they had professionally carried out the work in the first place the cost of the adjustment wouldn't have occurred. The only question is has, the breach injured her financial position, as if not she can only recover nominal damages12. I would argue that the shoddy workmanship of the Fixit work would constitute more nominal damages, as during the adjustment she had to stay close meaning she could make money, and she did also lose out on a quite lucrative contract of the gala (which is a separate issue from receiving refund