| 词条 | Exclusion clause |
| 释义 |
An exclusion clause is a term in a contract that seeks to restrict the rights of the parties to the contract. Traditionally, the district courts have sought to limit the operation of exclusion clauses. In addition to numerous common law rules limiting their operation, in England and Wales Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 applies to all contracts, but the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, unlike the common law rules, do differentiate between contracts between businesses and contracts between business and consumer, so the law seems to explicitly recognize the greater possibility of exploitation of the consumer by businesses. Types of Exclusion ClauseThere are various methods by which a party may seek to exclude or mitigate liability by use of a contractual term:
Term Must be IncorporatedThe courts have traditionally held that exclusion clauses only operate if they are actually part of the contract. There seem to be three methods of incorporation:
Judicial Control of Exclusion ClausesStrict Literal InterpretationFor an exclusion clause to operate, it must cover the breach (assuming there actually is a breach of contract). If there is, then the type of liability arising is also important. Generally, there are two varieties of liability: strict liability (liability arising due to a state of affairs without the party at breach necessarily being at fault) and liability for negligence (liability arising due to fault). The courts have a tendency of requiring the party relying on the clause to have drafted it properly so that it exempts them from the liability arising, and if any ambiguity is present, the courts usually interpret it strictly against the party relying on the clause. As espoused in Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd,[6] the meaning of an exclusion clause is construed in its ordinary and natural meaning in the context. Although we construe the meaning much like any other ordinary clause in the contract, we need to examine the clause in light of the contract as a whole. Exclusion clauses should not be subject to a strained construction in order to reduce the ambit of their operation.[7] The judge in R&B Customs Brokers Co Ltd v United Dominions Trust Ltd[8] refused to allow an exemption clause, of which did cover the nature of the implied term, on the grounds that it did not make specific and explicit reference to that term.[9] Contra ProferentemIf, after attempting to construe an exclusion clause (or indeed any other contractual term) in accord with its ordinary and natural meaning of the words, there is still ambiguity then (if the clause was imposed by one party upon the other without negotiation) the contra proferentem rule applies. Essentially this means that the clause will be construed against the interests of the person who proposed its inclusion. that is to say, contra (against) the proferens (proposer).[10] In terms of negligence, the courts have taken the approach that it is unlikely that someone would enter into a contract that allows the other party to evade fault based liability. As a result, if a party wishes exempt his liability for negligence, he must make sure that the other parties understand that. The decision in Canada SS Lines Ltd v. The King[11] held that:
In Australia, the four corners rule has been adopted in preference over the idea of a "fundamental breach".[12] The court will presume that parties to a contract will not exclude liability for losses arising from acts not authorised under the contract. However, if acts of negligence occur during authorised acts, then the exclusion clauses shall still apply;[13][14] If the contract is for the carriage of goods, if the path is deviated from what was agreed, any exclusion clauses no longer apply.[14] In Australia, exclusion clauses have been recognised as valid by the High Court. They do not apply in cases of deliberate breach. Statutory ControlEven if terms are incorporated into the contract and so would be effective, there are various statutory controls over the types of terms that may have legal effect. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 renders many exemption clauses ineffective. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 provide further protection for consumers. References{{Library resources box|by=no |onlinebooks=no |others=no |about=yes |label=Exclusion clause }} 1. ^[1934] 2 KB 394 16. See also, Darlington Futures v Delco Aus [1986] HCA 82 {{DEFAULTSORT:Exclusion Clause}}2. ^(1877) 4 CPD 416 3. ^[1971] 2 WLR 585 4. ^[1949] 1 All ER 127 5. ^[1964] 1 WLR 125 6. ^(1986) 161 CLR 500 7. ^[1986] HCA 82 8. ^[1988] 1 All ER 847 9. ^The term in question was the implied term as to fitness-to-purpose pursuant to the Sale of Goods Act 1979 s14(3). 10. ^{{cite AustLII|HCA|82|1986|litigants=Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd |parallelcite=(1986) 161 CLR 500 |courtname=auto |date=16 December 1986}}. 11. ^[1952] AC 192 12. ^{{cite AustLII|HCA|68|1965|litigants=Sydney City Council v West (Ticket case) |parallelcite=(1965) 114 CLR 481 |courtname=auto |date=16 December 1965}}. 13. ^{{cite AustLII|HCA|44|1954|litigants=Davis v Pearce Parking Station Pty Ltd}}: Clear words are necessary to exclude liability for negligence. 14. ^1 {{cite AustLII|HCA|46|1966|litigants=Thomas National Transport (Melbourne) Pty Ltd v May & Baker (Australia) Pty Ltd |parallelcite=(1966) 115 CLR 353 |courtname=auto |date=10 August 1966}}. 3 : Contract law|Legal terminology|Contract clauses |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。