COntract law

Explanatory Notes
The purpose of this explanatory notes is to provide Quanter Ltd legal aid, in which will advise them on how to deal with situations dealing with the following exemption clause. For example if a previous consumer of the laser war game attempted to sue the company for loss or damage to their personal belongings, these notes should help provide legal assistance for Quanter Ltd to deal with issues such as these. Firstly it is ideal that all Quanter Ltd staff should fully understand what is an exemption clause? And what is the purpose of it in order to avoid the possibility to be sued.
An exemption clause is a term of a contract that seeks to either limit or exclude liability for breaches of the contract. They act as contractual defences .
In order for an exemption clause to be fully incorporated into the Quanter Ltd contract, or for any contract for that matter, there are a number of essential elements that each contract must undertake in order to make the contract lawful an adequate e.g. incorporation by signature, incorporation by reasonable notice and incorporation by a previous course of dealing.
When a participant wishes to engage in the laser war game activities, they are firstly giving a contract in which the game player is intended to sign. The contents of the contract become terms of the contract regardless of whether they have been read or understood, this principle is known as incorporation by signature, which came from the case in L’estrange v Graucob (1934) - This is the case involving the defective cigarette vending machine. Once the offeree has provided there signature, they are automatically bound to the rules of that contract, irrespective of whether they have read the terms or not. However the inco...

... middle of paper ...

... is different to UCTA in the sense that UTCCR cover contractual terms in general, and not just exclusion clauses. UTCCR question the ‘fairness’ element of a contract. Just like UCTA they only operate on contracts related to consumers. In the case of Office of Fair Trading v Foxtons (2009) the high court noted that plain, intelligible language is language which is ‘sufficiently clear to enable the typical consumer to have a proper understanding’. Meaning that if Quanter Ltd uses lexis in the contract terms that is complex, such as words that can have different meanings, then the high courts will be in favour of the consumer, if the customer did decided to sue.
In conclusion, from reading the Quanter Ltd exemption clause, we can say that it is both reasonable and fair, minimising the issue of having the exclusion clause voided by UCTA and UTCCR, and also being sued.