100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
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 invalidatedon 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 notbe valid.a)VisibilityoFor the exclusion or limitation clause to be upheld, it must be reasonably visible. For instance, itmust not be in extremely small print. Further, if the clause is unusual, more steps must be takento 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)oHowever, 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 noticeof 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).
Exclusion clause on the CD after you buy the clause is even put inside hence customer has nopredetermined notification it is a part of the contract since you accept the offer to buy the CD butthere is no reasonable notice b)Place where it is foundoEven if the exclusion or limitation clause were part of the contract, for it to be valid, it wouldappear that the clause must be contained in a document in which the parties canreasonably expect to find contractual terms. In Chapelton v Barry UDC (1940), for instance, the court held that the exclusion clausecontained in the ticket in question was not binding as no reasonable person in thecircumstances would expect to find contractual terms on a ticket5.c)Indirect referenceoThe 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 factsthere was reasonable notice. Similarly, in Press Automation Technology Pte Ltd v Trans-Link Exhibition ForwardingPte Ltd(2003).d)LanguageoWhether the exclusion or limitation clause would be binding if the other party to thecontract is unable to understand it as he is illiterateor does not understand the language. oIn Thompson v London Midland & Scottish Railway (1930), the court held that the fact thatthe plaintiff was illiterate did not affect the validity of the exclusion clause. In the Singaporecontext, generally since English is widely spoken, it would probably be reasonablysufficientif the exclusion or limitation clause is worded in English and it would generallynot matter that the other party to the contract could not read it or is illiterate.