Contract Exemption Clauses and Unfair Terms - Essay Example

Julia and Dave were, on the other hand, unable to negotiate the contractual terms when presented to them. As such the organization exercised its strength through a weak contract and choosing on their own where to deliver the Super U boat contrary to what was agreed between them and Julia. Being the weaker party in this contractual arrangement, Julia and Dave they opt to hire a crew in order to re-deliver the boat to their desired Hamble destination at an extra cost of ?900 instead. However, the law through the courts settles a common playing field for either parties.

Sun searchers may have to prove to the court that Dave and Julia specifically agreed to the two exclusion clauses that appear to be unreasonable, and for consenting to the delivery of the boat delivered to an alternate destination. This is in line with the provisions of Unfair Contract Terms Act [1977]; that contract cannot be altered unilaterally, in this case by SunSearchers, without the consulting Julia and Dave as the other party. This was not followed by Sunsearchers. In addition, the Act also provides that exemption clauses have to be reasonable, or else be deemed void by a court. . The seller breached the agreement. ii) Julia and Daves liability in respect of the damage to the Sunharvest Contrary to the doctrine of privity where a third party like Sunharvest had no right to the benefits conferred in a contract, the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act [1999] allows for this.

Under this Act, Sunharvest can explore and seek legal remedies for the damages, as well as sue for breach of contract. There are, however, limitations as to how a contract can be changed without the consent of the third party involved. iii) Whether Julia Will Be Able To Claim Against Sunsearchers Ltd In Respect Of The Personal Injuries Sustained Following The Malfunction Of Their SuperU  By virtue of signing the contract it may be argued that Julia consented to the terms therein. This is in accordance to the cases of Parker v South Eastern Railway and as well as L’Estrange v Graucob , where it ruled by the court that : in the absence of fraud, or misrepresentation, the party signing a contractual document is bound by it whether he or she has read the document or not.

However, the Misrepresentation Act 1967, The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, accords Julia the right to claim against Sunsearchers Ltd in respect of the personal injuries sustained and even. According to the Acts, misrepresentation in any manner goes towards negating her consent to one or more terms of the document. Equally, the contract can be annulled by the court in her favour if can prove that the contract was tainted with fraud or misrepresentation.

The fact that the exclusion clauses in the contract were partially replicated in the invoice which the Julia had signed suffices grounds for misrepresentation. In line with the