Incorporate Exclusion Clause in Comic †Free Samples to Students

Question: Discuss about the Incorporate Exclusion Clause in Comic. Answer: Introduction: The clause mentioned on the docket received by Jane can be described as an exclusion clause. An exclusion clause is used to eliminate or to restrict liability of a party to the contract. An exclusion clause is also a relevant term of the contract (L'Estrange v F Graucob Ltd., 1934). However, the party may rely on an exclusion clause if it follows the statutory requirements and is also in a position to establish that the clause in fact, forms a part of the contract. Therefore, when the parties have signed a contract and an exclusion clause is a part of such contract, then the parties are legally bound by the clause, even if the other party claims that it has not read the clause or did not understand the terms of the contract (Parker v South Eastern Railway, 1877). In the present case, the clause was not effectively incorporated into the contract. The reason was that although the parties have signed the document, but the law also requires that in order to incorporate an exclusion clause in a contract comic is also required that the presence of such sluicing clauses should be brought to the notice of the other party before or while the parties are going to enter into the contract (Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd., 1970). Even if the clause has been incorporated in the contract in this case, but the law provides that when the signature to an exclusion clause has been obtained on account of a misrepresentation, the party making such representation cannot rely on the clause. If the receipt would not be signed by the parties, it cannot be said that the clause was a part of the contract. The reason is that if the receipt was not signed, it cannot be said that the clause has been incorporated in the contract because it was mentioned at the back of the docket and in small print. In the present case, the representative had assured Jane that the clause is applicable only if the dress would have been made of Satin as it tends to change color after dry cleaning. As Jane's dress was not made of 100% satin, the representative said that there should be no problem. However, this was not true, and the exclusion clause had been incorporated by the store for excluding its liability regarding any type of damage that may be suffered by the clothes of the customers. In this way, the representative had made a misrepresentation and as a result, the store cannot rely on the exclusion clause. The four corners rule has been adopted in Australia as against the idea of fundamental breach. In this case, the court presumes that the parties to the contract will not exclude the liability for any loss caused by the acts that have not been authorized by the contract. On the other hand, if the negligence has taken place during the authorized acts, then the exclusion clause will be applicable (The Council of the City of Sydney v. West, 1965). In this way this rule provides that when a document appears to be complete on the face of the, no outside evidence may be produced to challenge the document. However, the rule is not applicable in the present case because a misrepresentation has been made. References Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1 Harvey v Facey [1893] UKPC 1 Hyde v. Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334 L'Estrange v F Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394 Parker v South Eastern Railway [1877] 2 CPD 416 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots [1953] 1 QB 401 The Council of the City of Sydney v. West (1965) 114 CLR 481 Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ 2