Pippa would be suing Flowerdews for Breach of s.13 Supply of Goods and Service Act.Pippa would also be suing for a breach of s.14 (2) and (3) Sales of Good Act 1979 there is also a possible claim of negligence on behalf of the Flowerdews Delivery man (Bob) for the negligent assembling of the shed.
The person wishing to rely on the exclusion clause must show that it formed part of the contract. An exclusion clause can be incorporated in the contract by signature, by notice, or by a course of dealing.
The defendant in this scenario is Flowerdews. Flowerdews would need to prove that they are not liable for breach of contract, they could do this by relying on any exclusion clauses that they may have which formed part of the contract that they …show more content…
Pippa is therefore bound by it whether it has she read the terms or not. The General Rule in L’ Estrange v Graucob 1934 2 KB 34 means that Pippa would be contractually bound by the clause unless there was a misrepresentation about the clause. An example of an exception was seen in Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing 1951 1 KB 805 in this case the claimant was given wrong information, when she asked an assistant of the shop what she was signing, therefore the defence could not rely on the clause even though the claimant had signed the form, as a signature generally makes any contractual document legally binding. However it does not state in the scenario if Pippa was misinformed about the …show more content…
The clause could be seen as vague because of the chosen word ‘otherwise’. The contra proferentem rule is very limited and would only normally apply in two circumstances, when there is an ambiguity in the clause e.g where a word has two or more means or where all the other of rules of construction have failed to resolve it. For this reason the clause would be seen as ambiguous because the rule states that the clause must be drafted
The person wishing to rely on the exclusion clause must show that it formed part of the contract. An exclusion clause can be incorporated in the contract by signature, by notice, or by a course of dealing.
The defendant in this scenario is Flowerdews. Flowerdews would need to prove that they are not liable for breach of contract, they could do this by relying on any exclusion clauses that they may have which formed part of the contract that they …show more content…
Pippa is therefore bound by it whether it has she read the terms or not. The General Rule in L’ Estrange v Graucob 1934 2 KB 34 means that Pippa would be contractually bound by the clause unless there was a misrepresentation about the clause. An example of an exception was seen in Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing 1951 1 KB 805 in this case the claimant was given wrong information, when she asked an assistant of the shop what she was signing, therefore the defence could not rely on the clause even though the claimant had signed the form, as a signature generally makes any contractual document legally binding. However it does not state in the scenario if Pippa was misinformed about the …show more content…
The clause could be seen as vague because of the chosen word ‘otherwise’. The contra proferentem rule is very limited and would only normally apply in two circumstances, when there is an ambiguity in the clause e.g where a word has two or more means or where all the other of rules of construction have failed to resolve it. For this reason the clause would be seen as ambiguous because the rule states that the clause must be drafted