• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/8

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

8 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
  • 3rd side (hint)

D sent C wrong seeds causing him losses of £61,000. Term restricting liability to the cost of the seeds (£200) was unfair because D could have obtained insurance more easily than C.

George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds (1983)

Surveyor was liable to claimant to whom he failed to reoort structural damage despite liability exclusion clause because it is more easy for a professional surveyor to bear the burden of liability than for the ordinary buyer of a family home to do so

Smith v Eric S Bush (1990)

Contract with mortgage provider

Unfair for a multinational company to restrict liabilitu yo £100,000 when it caused losses of over £1m and had insurance of £50m

St Alban's City & District Council v International Computers (1996)

Contractually agreed interest rates are not prohibited and the absence of them would "unbalance the contract to the detriment of the lender" (Bingham

Director-General of Fair Trading v First National Bank (2001)

UCTA 1977


S2, S3, S4, S5

S2: no exclusionof liability for death or personal injury caused by negligence


S3: restriction of liability regarding the provision of substantially different performance or no provision at all (subject to RT)


S4: consumer cannot be made to pay an unreasonable indemnity arising from breach of contract or negligence


S5: liability for loss or damage from defective goods caused by negligence cannot be excluded

UCTA 1977, S11

S11: reasonableness test- take into account all circumstances e.g. resources- not decided with hindsight- burden of proof on the party trying to rely on the clause

UTCCR 1999, Regs 5, 7, 8

Reg 5: unfair if not individually negotiated, contrary to good faith or causes a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer



Reg 7: "contra proferentem" any term whichis not "plain" or "intelligible" will be interpreted in the way most favourable to the consumer



Reg 8: an unfair term will not be binding on the consumer

Draft Consumer Rights Bill 2015


(October 2015)

- pre-contractual information about main traits will be incorporated


- apply to digital goods as to normal products


- all written terms must be "transparent" (rather than plain and intelligible"