Terms and conditions often include clauses which seek to limit or exclude a party’s liability under the contract. In this piece, I consider the types of exclusion clauses (sometimes referred to as limitation of liability clauses, limitation clauses, exclusion of liability clauses or exemption clauses) and the court’s approach to such clauses.

There are a number of different types of exclusion clauses including:

  • Clauses excluding terms implied by statute (i.e. and thus limiting the obligations of the party);
  • Clauses excluding certain remedies (such as the right to set-off);
  • Clauses excluding certain types of loss (i.e. consequential loss, loss of profit etc.);
  • Clauses imposing a financial cap on any damages;
  • Clauses imposing time limits to bring or notify a claim.

Assuming that the relevant exclusion clause has been incorporated into the contract, the clause must be clear and unambiguous and cover the relevant breach of contract and type of loss that has occurred.

Before the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (“UCTA 1977”) came into force, the courts applied a strict construction of exemption clauses. The general approach of the courts was that any ambiguity in an exemption clause was to be interpreted against the party that was attempting to rely on it.

Section 3 UCTA 1977 applies where one party deals on the other’s written standard terms of business. Section 3(2) UCTA 1977 provides that a contractual term seeking to exclude or restrict liability must satisfy the requirement of reasonableness. The party seeking to rely on the exclusion clause has the burden of proving that the clause satisfies the reasonableness requirement.

The test for ‘reasonableness’ is set out in Section 11 UCTA 1977. Section 11 UCTA 1977 provides that the requirement of reasonableness is that the clause shall have been a fair and reasonable one to include having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made. Schedule 2 of UCTA 1977 provides a list of matters which regard is to be had when considering whether a clause satisfies the reasonableness test:

  • The strength of the bargaining positions of the parties relative to each other, taking into account (among other things) alternative means by which the customer’s requirements could have been met;
  • Whether the customer received an inducement to agree to the term, or in accepting that it had an opportunity of entering into a similar contract with other persons, but without having a similar term;
  • Whether the customer knew or ought to have known of the existence and the extent of the term (having regard, among other things, to any custom of the trade and any previous course of dealing between the parties);
  • Where the term excludes or restricts any relevant liability if some condition was not complied with, whether it was reasonable at the time of the contract to expect that compliance with that condition would be practicable;
  • Whether the goods were manufactured, processed or adapted to the special order of the customer.

The matters listed in Schedule 2 UCTA 1977 are only applicable for certain sections of UCTA 1977 but they will generally be considered by the courts when determining whether an exclusion clause in a party’s standard terms and conditions satisfies the reasonableness test.

The courts will also consider the availability of insurance. Section 11(4) UCTA 1977 provides that where a person seeks to restrict liability to a specified sum of money, and the question arises (under this or any other Act) whether the term or notice satisfies the requirement of reasonableness, regard shall be had in particular to:

  • The resources which he could expect to be available to him for the purpose of meeting the liability should it arise; and
  • How far it was open to him to cover himself by insurance.

While UCTA 1977 provides that the availability of insurance is specifically relevant where a person seeks to restrict liability to a specified sum of money, it may be relevant when considering the reasonableness of a clause under UCTA 1977 generally.

In conclusion, the court will take into account a number of factors when determining whether an exclusion clause is fair and reasonable and therefore enforceable. It is necessary to consider the specific wording of the exclusion clause, the contract as a whole and the surrounding circumstances.

If you require advice regarding the validity of an exclusion clause, then please contact Andrew via andrew.ryan@dbf-law.co.uk, Rebecca Taylor, solicitor, via rebecca.taylor@dbf-law.co.uk or call 0161 832 3304.

 

Testimonials

Read what our clients have to say...

View All

Excellent experience start to finish – always very responsive to any queries and the turnaround on the property I was buying was very quick, even in the busy time leading up to stamp duty deadline. Jenny was always very helpful and went above and beyond to close on a short timescale.

Ben Armitage

“Very approachable, practical solutions to problems, but most of all very responsive which I personally think is very important because if you need help, you need it quickly, or at least to know someone is looking at it for you”.

Joanne Rowe, Finance Director, Greater Manchester Chamber

“Always able to contact, very approachable, friendly and professional”

Nives Feely, JAM Recruitment

“I believe I have been able to establish a professional working relationship with everyone I have come into contact. Importantly, I sense the relationships which have been established give me the confidence that I can make contact with Davis Blank Furniss at any time and on any matter. I would also like to express my thanks to the very impressive “gatekeepers” who work in reception, not only for making me very welcome, but also for their professionalism”

Bill Pryke, CEO, Chartered Institution of Civil Engineering Surveyors

“Thank you for your efficient and friendly help throughout this process. We have had it easy but your approach has been part of that”.

Robert Amsbury (Conveyancing Client)

“I would like to take this opportunity to thank you personally for the ongoing support and assistance the firm has offered to our parents over the years. I hope also that we may be able to call on you if necessary in the future.”

Valerie Fisher (Probate Client)

“Jo always provides great service, understands our needs and delivers on her promises. Our needs are relatively simple but the complexity arises out of the volume of work and short time frames, Jo always delivers.”

Peter Fernandez, Corporate Director at Royal Bank of Scotland

“A big thank you to all who dealt with my wife’s claim… We would not hesitate to recommend Davis Blank Furniss to anyone that may be in a situation like we have been…”

Anon (Personal Injury client)

“Before putting my case in Kirsty (Morbey)’s capable hands I’ve met a couple of other solicitors. None of them listen to me as intently as Kirsty and showed me as much empathy and understanding as she did. Simultaneously she was able to look at my case from legal perspective, explain all the options and follow each of our meetings with written summary of the discussed matters (in timely manner). Her advice was invaluable and led me to successfully ending the case matter (hopeful for good). I’m forever grateful for he work and would definitely recommend her to anyone looking for reliable, knowledgeable and committed solicitor”.

Anon (Family client)
5 star service

Our Manchester office is rated 5 stars on Google