Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Exclusion clauses - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Misrepresentation of terms (Curtis v Chemical Cleaning)
      - Previous dealings (Spurling v Bradshaw)
        
        The dealings must have been on the same terms (McCutcheon v MacBrayn)
        
        They must have been frequent enough (Hollier v Rambler Motors)
    - - Terms are incorporated if they are signed on a physical document even if they weren't read or hard to read (L' Estrange v Graucob)
        
        The document must be intended to have contractual effect
        
        Chappleton v Barry UDC
      - Resonable notice
        
        Parker v South Eastern Railway
        
        It is still incorporated even if the user is illiterate
        
        Thompson v London, Midlands and Scotland Railway Co. Ltd
      - Brought to attention BEFORE OR AT the time of the contract creation
        
        Olley v Malbrough Court
        
        Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking
      - The more onerous a clause is, the more attention has to be drawn to it for it to be incorporated. (Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd)
    - - A substantially different document was signed
      - Proof of carelessness and inability to read due to ineffective education, illness or innage capacity
  - - - Does the clause expressly exclude liability for negligence?
      - Are the words when interpreted in their ordinary meaning, wide enough to cover negligence?
      - Does the clause cover liability other than negligence?
      - One of questions must be answered in order for the clause to be effective and the claim dismissed