e similar documents containing exclusion clauses were used in previous

E similar documents containing exclusion clauses were

This preview shows page 12 - 14 out of 18 pages.

(i.e. similar documents containing exclusion clauses were used in previous occasions) , the clause might not be invalidated on this ground. 2. Is there reasonable notice of the clause? Was there reasonable notice of the clause? If there was no reasonable notice, then it would not be valid. a) Visibility o For the exclusion or limitation clause to be upheld, it must be reasonably visible. For instance, it must not be in extremely small print. Further, if the clause is unusual, more steps must be taken to bring it to the attention of the other party, for instance, by having it in bold print . Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stilletto Visual Programmes Ltd (1989) o However, it must be pointed out that if the contracting party signs the contractual document, then generally in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation, even if there is no adequate notice of the exclusion or limitation clause, the party who signed it is bound by it . L’Estrange v Graucob (1934) Press Automation Technology Pte Ltd v Trans-Link Exhibition Forwarding Pte Ltd (2003) .
Image of page 12
Exclusion clause on the CD after you buy the clause is even put inside hence customer has no predetermined notification it is a part of the contract since you accept the offer to buy the CD but there is no reasonable notice b) Place where it is found o Even if the exclusion or limitation clause were part of the contract, for it to be valid, it would appear that the clause must be contained in a document in which the parties can reasonably expect to find contractual terms . In Chapelton v Barry UDC (1940), for instance, the court held that the exclusion clause contained in the ticket in question was not binding as no reasonable person in the circumstances would expect to find contractual terms on a ticket 5 . c) Indirect reference o The question might also arise as to whether it is possible to incorporate an exclusion or limitation clause by reference . For instance, if X buys a product from Y in a face-to-face transaction, can Y in the contract state that he excludes liability the details of which are to be found on a website ? Thompson v London Midland & Scottish Railway (1930) , the contract referred to an exclusion clause that was available from another place . The court held on the facts there was reasonable notice. Similarly, in Press Automation Technology Pte Ltd v Trans-Link Exhibition Forwarding Pte Ltd (2003) . d) Language o Whether the exclusion or limitation clause would be binding if the other party to the contract is unable to understand it as he is illiterate or does not understand the language . o In Thompson v London Midland & Scottish Railway (1930) , the court held that the fact that the plaintiff was illiterate did not affect the validity of the exclusion clause . In the Singapore context, generally since English is widely spoken , it would probably be reasonably sufficient if the exclusion or limitation clause is worded in English and it would generally not matter that the other party to the contract could not read it or is illiterate.
Image of page 13
Image of page 14

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture