There are two urgent Issues for us to figure out when dealing with two questions: firstly, whether Iron’s exclusion clause on the receipt or the sign Is effective based on the fact that Winston does not know that existence of exclusion clause. Secondly, whether Winston accepts Iron’s exclusion clause at the right time and whether it can exclude Ron for liability. (a) Whether Winston Is bound by the words on the receipt or the sign? As we can see In the case Introduction, Ron has manufactured poor quality paint due to its negligence. The poor quality paint has caused damage to the client’s building.

It is the poor quality paint that makes losses to Winston. Later, the losses are caused by Winston employee, Jeff deliberate willingness. Ron is irresponsible to the losses. The so called exclusion clauses are also known as exception or exemption clauses or ‘no allowably clauses. It alms to exclude or Limit the liability of the companies Inserting them. It can be used to absolve companies of liability when they will otherwise be too risky to do business. Its effectiveness will depend on the construction of the contract as a whole, taking into account the bargaining position of the parties.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

On the one hand, according to Thompson v London, Midland & Scottish Railway Co, eBay International GAG v Creative Festival Entertainment Pity Ltd, Alley v Marlborough Court Ltd and Bellman New Ferry Co Ltd v Robertson, the effectiveness of exclusion clause depends on the time of notice of It. The validity of exclusion clause of Ron depends on the time when Winston is aware of it. Notice of exclusion clause must be given before contract is made (not afterward). In the case, Winston has never read the notice on the receipt. Therefore, the exclusion clause of Ron will not be effective.

Namely, Ron should be responsible to the losses caused by its poor quality paint. On the other hand, According to Lagrange v Curaçao Ltd, selling Is the evidence you intend to be bound. Namely, you are bound by what you sign, even If you do not know what you have signed. Therefore, it is of great significance to carefully read what we sign before we sign it. We can know from the case introduction that Winston has never read the notice on the sign before he signs the receipt. But Winston is still bound by the exclusion clause based on the fact that Winston has signed the receipt.

Namely, Ron should not be responsible to the losses caused by Its poor quality paint. Of course, whether Winston is bound by the words on the receipt or the sign also depends on the so-called statutory modifications, which may determine the effectiveness of exclusion clause. Common statutory modifications consist of Consumer Protection, Sale of Goods and Insurance, which may render an exclusion clause Ineffective. According to Australian Consumer Law, as a business, its statutory rights will depend almost completely on what’s In your contract.

Namely, as a Dustless Dryer, ten companies you Duty Trot can take most AT tense statutory relents way, as long as they make this clear in your contract. They can do this by putting an exclusion clause in your contract. In this situation, there may be very little you can do if something goes wrong with your goods or services. What the business buyer can do if its contract has an exclusion clause is negotiating with the seller and challenging the exclusion clause. In the case, Iron’s exclusion clause statement is legal due to the regulations mentioned above, Winston, as a business buyer, should be responsible to its purchasing contract?receipt.

Namely, Ron should not be expansible to the losses caused by its poor quality paint. What Winston can do in the case is Just negotiating with Ron and challenging the exclusion clause with the help of court. According to Australian Consumer Law, every business has a responsibility to respect its customer’s rights under the CAL, and to honor its legal obligations. All business should be required to meet general standards of business conduct such as ensuring the safety of products and services. In the case, Ron produces the poor quality paint with negligence. Therefore, Ron should be at least partly responsible to the losses.

Due to the fact that the poor quality paint causes damage to the client’s buildings and the poor quality of paint is caused by the negligent manufacturing of Ron, and that Winston has never read either the notice on the receipt or the sign, we can conclude that Winston is not bound by the words on the receipt or the sign. Therefore, Winston demand of compensation from Ron should be satisfied legally. However, we should also take Winston responsibility into consideration. Its negligence of signing the contract and regulations mentioned above may prove that Winston should be responsible to the losses.

In conclusion, whether Winston is bound by the words on the receipt or the sign depends on the results of the negotiating between Winston and Ron. Otherwise, whether the exclusion clause is reasonable depends on the court Judgment. I am of opinion that Ron should be major responsible to the losses caused by its poor quality paint, and Winston has secondary responsibility in the situation for the first losses. For the second losses directly caused by Winston employee, Ron has completely no liability, and losses should be compensated by its employee.

Assumed that Winston had read the sign at the time of buying the paint and had seed what it meant and been told by Iron’s salesman that it excluded Ron for liability only if the paint fumes affected people with an allergy to those fumes, we can know that Winston has already known the exclusion clause when doing the business. As we can see in the case introduction, Iron’s exclusion clause appears on the receipt and the counter of Iron’s sales area. For one thing, according to Thompson v London, the court holds that a representation made by one party cannot become a term of a contract if made after the agreement Is mace.

I en representation can only De legally Addling when It Is mace at ten time he contract was formed. Namely, whether exclusion clause is effective major depends on the fact that whether both parties of the contract know the existence of it when signing the contract. In the case, the validity of exclusion clause of Ron depends on the fact that whether Winston had already been aware of it when they signing the contract. Notice of exclusion clause has been given when contract is made.

Thus, we can say that Iron’s exclusion clause is effective in the case, namely, Ron should not be responsible to the losses caused by its poor quality paint and the second losses caused by Winston employees. For another, according to Lagrange v Curaçao Ltd, the Judge holds that Miss Harriet Mary L ‘Estrange does not know that there is writing or printing on the document; Miss Harriet Mary L ‘Estrange does not know that the writing or printing contains conditions relating to the terms of the contract; and Mr. Saguaro’s has not done what is reasonably sufficient to give Miss Harriet Mary L ‘Estrange notice of the conditions.

Signing is the evidence of you intention to be bound. Namely, your signing is legally binding, even if you do not know the existence of exclusion clause. Thus, it is important to carefully check what you sign before you sign it. We can know from the case introduction that Winston has been told the existence of the exclusion clause when he signs the receipt. It is obviously that Winston sign is legally binding based on the fact that Winston has signed the receipt and that Winston has been noticed that the existence of the exclusion clause of Ron.

Namely, Winston should be responsible to the losses caused by Iron’s poor quality paint and its employees. According to Parker v South Eastern Railway Co, The majority of the Court of Appeal olds that if Mr. Parker knows of the conditions he would be bound. If he does not know, he would still be bound if he is given the ticket in such a way as amounted to reasonable notice.

We can understand that if the person receiving the ticket does not see or know that there is any writing on the ticket, he is not bound by the exclusion clauses; that if he knows there is writing, and know or believes that the writing contains exclusion clauses, then he is bound by the exclusion clauses; that if he know there is writing on the ticket, but does not know or believe that the writing contains exclusion clauses, nevertheless he would be bound, if the delivering of the ticket to him in such a manner that he could see there is writing upon it, is reasonable notice that the writing contains exclusion clauses.

In the case, Winston has read the sign at the time of buying the paint and has asked what it meant and been told by Iron’s salesman that it excludes Ron for liability only if the paint fumes affected people with an allergy to those fumes. We can know that Iron’s exclusion clause has been delivered to Winston in a reasonable manner and Winston definitely knows the existence of Iron’s exclusion clause. Therefore, Winston is bound by the Iron’s exclusion clause.

According to Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co and Causer v Browne, the court holds that a consumer cannot escape a contractual term by failing to read the contract but that a company wanting to rely on an exclusion clause must take reasonable steps to Drill It to ten attention AT ten customer. In ten case, Iron’s salesman has explained that meaning of the sign and tells Winston that the exclusions clause excludes Ron for liability. Therefore, Winston sign is legally binding. Namely, Winston admit that Ron exclude liability only if the paint fumes effected people with an allergy to those fumes.

Obviously, poor quality paint does not belong to exclusion clause. Namely, Ron should not be responsible to the losses caused by Iron’s poor quality paint and its employees. In conclusion, if Winston had read the sign at the time of buying the paint and had only if the paint fumes affected people with an allergy to those fumes. Winston will be bound by the words on the receipt or the sign. Namely, Winston will not be able to claim compensation from Ron. I am of opinion that Winston should be major responsible to the losses caused by

Iron’s poor quality paint, and Ron has no responsibility in the situation for the first obviously no indemnification obligations and its employee Jeff should compensate losses. To conclude, whether Winston is bound by the words on the receipt or the sign is largely determined by the fact that whether Winston knows the existence of exclusion clause and that the time Winston knows the existence of exclusion clause. For the first losses, we should treat them separately based on the different assumption; for the second losses, there is no doubt that Winston employee, Jeff should compensate Winston losses.