The Importance Of Reasonableness In Law

1. Introduction Reasonableness in law means it is fair in any situation. In the law of negligence, reasonableness is judged by seeing whether a claimant breached his or her duty of care towards a defendant. Breach of duty is also known as failure to take reasonable care. Law is a body of rules of conduct of binding legal force and effect, prescribed, recognized, and enforced by controlling authority. (The Free Dictionary, 2016) In the United States, punishment for broken the law is criminal punishment or civil liability. The laws are made by the legislative department. The top law in US is the US constitution. Case law is the law made by judges. Common law is the body of legal rules developed from case law. There are two types of law which

This then can satisfy the reasonableness test. In the section 2 of UCTA, it is stated that contractual terms or notices which exclude liability are valid if reasonable. Exclusion clauses are invalid if involves liability for death or personal injury. The exclusion clause cannot be enforced if the reasonable test is not satisfied. 2.2 Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] This case shows the limits of the exclusion clauses in contracts or notices. The claimant, Thornton injured himself in Shoe Lane Parking, the defendant’s car park. The defendant’s negligence was the cause of the injury. Thornton was issued a ticket on entering the defendant’s car park. The ticket stated the terms and conditions on parking in the car park which was also stated inside the car park. The exclusion clause for limited liability was included. The Court of Appeal questioned: was the terms incorporated into the contract. This is determined through the place the offer and acceptance occurred. The court held that the defendant cannot reply on the exclusion clauses because the contract was already formed before the introducing of the exclusion clauses. The acceptance only took place when the car park ticket was

Epcot discussed other parts of the contract but not the exclusion clause as Epcot did not indicate the exclusion clause as unreasonable. The final decision of the Court was that the exclusion clause met the reasonableness requirement under UCTA. Regus’s appeal was successful. 2.4 L’Estrange v Graucob [1934] This case stated where the exemption clause is contained in a document which has been signed. After signed, it will automatically form part of the contract. In this case, the claimant Miss L’Estrange bought a cigarette vending machine for her café. She signed the form which stated that she understood the terms and conditions of buying the vending machine. After signing the form, the vending machine malfunctioned and so the claimant sued the defendant under the Sales of Goods Act. The Court of Appeal held that in signing the order form the claimant had effectively signed her rights away. The claimant was bounded by the terms and conditions of the form. The claimant’s claim was therefore unsuccessful. 2.5 The Reasonable Man A reasonable person would not fall below the standards of any ordinary reasonable person in any situation. If falled below standards of reasonableness, the defendant will be known as negligent.