.........much later, lol.
Ok
Contracts have primary obligations.
Ie party A hires party B to cut his lawn for the consideration (price) of £50
The primary obligations are
1/ the cutting of the lawn by B
2/ the payment by A of £50 for doing so.
But the contract contains an exclusion cause.
Let's say it is "If, for no fault of his own, B does not carry out the task, the contract is voided."
Let's say that A wanted the lawn cut because he was selling the property.
Because of the unkempt lawn, a prospective buyer decides not to buy.
A then tries to sue B for damages caused by the breach. (Poss the loss of chance to sell the house?)
The question for the court is then "Is it fair for B to be able to rely on the exemption clause?"
That pretty well fits with your case.
Can the other party rely on that exclusion clause re the survey?
I'd argue no; it appears to me to be far too vague, & I would suspect that not many members of the public would know what "subject to the usual survey" would mean...it could easily be used as a 'get out of jail free' card.
& 'unequal bargaining power' could kick in.....is their experience & knowledge being used to insert an unfair term?
You also have Suisse Atlantique Societe d'Armament SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale [1967] 1 AC 361
& of course the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 & CPUTR 2008
It is for the court to decide the fairness of the term & whether an exclusion can be relied upon.
(There was much fun & games between the (then) House of Lords & the Court of Appeal as to the decisions of these types of cases.)
That's my take on it, anyway.
Btw, I've PM'd you.
Ok
Contracts have primary obligations.
Ie party A hires party B to cut his lawn for the consideration (price) of £50
The primary obligations are
1/ the cutting of the lawn by B
2/ the payment by A of £50 for doing so.
But the contract contains an exclusion cause.
Let's say it is "If, for no fault of his own, B does not carry out the task, the contract is voided."
Let's say that A wanted the lawn cut because he was selling the property.
Because of the unkempt lawn, a prospective buyer decides not to buy.
A then tries to sue B for damages caused by the breach. (Poss the loss of chance to sell the house?)
The question for the court is then "Is it fair for B to be able to rely on the exemption clause?"
That pretty well fits with your case.
Can the other party rely on that exclusion clause re the survey?
I'd argue no; it appears to me to be far too vague, & I would suspect that not many members of the public would know what "subject to the usual survey" would mean...it could easily be used as a 'get out of jail free' card.
& 'unequal bargaining power' could kick in.....is their experience & knowledge being used to insert an unfair term?
You also have Suisse Atlantique Societe d'Armament SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale [1967] 1 AC 361
& of course the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 & CPUTR 2008
It is for the court to decide the fairness of the term & whether an exclusion can be relied upon.
(There was much fun & games between the (then) House of Lords & the Court of Appeal as to the decisions of these types of cases.)
That's my take on it, anyway.
Btw, I've PM'd you.
Comment