Under the assumption that contract did not specify that Byte should have a

Under the assumption that contract did not specify

This preview shows page 8 - 10 out of 41 pages.

Under the assumption that contract did not specify that Byte should have a helpdesk based in Z, Z is unable to sue for breach in contract since setting up helpdesk was not part of the contract that was agreed upon. To make the position clearer before making the contract, Z could have had the foresight to discuss the need for helpdesk since they mentioned that the software was important to
Image of page 8
the company. However after contract has been made, what Z can do is come up with a new contract with Byte so that a helpdesk can be based in Z. No. the lawyers would not have known what Z needs since lawyers may not know the importance of the software to Z. Hence, what Z could have done was to go through the contract terms to see if the contract protects them and talk to the lawyers. 3. Pee Tee drives up to a multistory car park operated by ADVENTURE Mall. After driving up, she presses for a ticket and a ticket is issued. The ticket states that the management is not responsible for any loss or theft of the car or for loss or theft of items inside a car or for injury to customers or passengers, arising out of the car park’s negligence or other breach. As Pee Tee returns from her shopping another customer carelessly runs over Pee Tee’s foot with a trolley. Shortly after that while limping to her car, an overhead metal pipe drops on her head and injures her. To her further dismay she notices that some valuables from her car have been stolen. Answer the following questions: (a) Has the mall breached an express or implied term in the contract? Mall has breached implied term when pipe drop on head. Necessary and obvious that carpark operator have duty to maintain the car for shoppers. (b) Assuming it has, is the exemption clause effective in excusing it from liability? No. because exemption clause is only issued when ticket is received, thus a contract is not binding since offer and acceptance was made without the knowledge of the exemption clause. (acceptance when driver put money, offer when ticket is issued). Foot injury- 2(1), personal injury Pipe- 2(1), personal injury Robbery – property damage/stolen, mall liable UCtA 2(2), must see if clause is reasonable? If reasonable, excluding liability, then not responsible for loss. Which under reasonableness, can look at insurance of car, etc. (c) Would your answer to (b) be different if there was also a notice at the entrance excluding liability in similar terms? On the assumption that the notice font size is big enough and drivers can read the notice while driving. Yes it would be different. Exemption clause would then be valid since contract was made with the knowledge of the clause. 4. Fawn has a pet food shop in Clementi selling pet food. It is a small shop and patronized by persons in the neighbourhood. As she is thinking of immigrating, she sells her business (including stock in trade and goodwill) for $200000 to Animal Farm Pte Ltd. There is a clause in the contract which states that Fawn will not for a period of 5 years after the sale, set up a business relating to any aspect of the pets industry, such as pet foods, pet accessories or pet grooming, in Singapore. After 3
Image of page 9
Image of page 10

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture