This assignment involves me:
* Explaining the law with respect to consumer protection
* Analysing how consumers are protected in the event of a breach of contract for sale of goods * Describing remedies available for breach of contract
* Analysing the remedies available to a business provider in the event of a breach of contract for the supply of goods or services Task 1
Heep Ltd want to leave some lorries for two weeks at micawbers garage, the following morning heep received a note from micawaber, on the back were conditions exempting mikiwaber for ‘any kind of loss or damage in respect of vehicles in his care’ one of the lorries were left in a side street next to the garage while vehicles were being rearranged in the yard. It was stolen. Advise both parties regarding liability for the stolen lorry Consider common law and statutory provisions.
I would advise Heep to refer to Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council 1940 which deals with section 2(2), Negligence - “Exclusion of liability for negligence other than for death or personal injury must satisfy the requirement of reasonableness” The case follows:
Chapleton hired two deck chairs, one of which collapsed injuring Chapleton, when hiring the deck chairs she has been given a ticket (headed receipt) and on the back was a clause excluding liability for any injuries. It was then held that this clause was not in a reasonable place as all anyone would think is that they were getting a receipt for their money, meaning the clause isn’t valid because it hasn’t been expressed with the proper intentions. I would also advise Heep that the purpose of leaving his lorries at mikiwabers garage was for them to be safe and so the implied term of the lorries being kept safe was then implied. As the garage is purpose made for the storage of motor vehicles and the lorries were in mikiwabers care it is up to mikiwaber to ensure the safety of any property he is responsible for under section 2(2). The mistake was made of leaving a lorry in a side street when Heep was under the impression that the lorries were all being kept safe in the yard. It would be unreasonable to keep the lorries in the side street as this wasn’t part of the agreement that the pair made. It would be unreasonable for Heep to have to pay for the lorries when he has made a contract and paid someone else to look after them.
Spurling v Bradshaw 
The defendant used the services of a warehouse to store goods on a regular basis. Each time he delivered goods to the warehouse he was asked to sign an invoice which contained an exclusion clause. This invoice came after the contract had been agreed. On one occasion he stored some barrels of orange juice and again signed the invoice. When he went to pick them up, however, some of the barrels were empty and one contained dirty water. Consequently he refused to pay for the storage. The claimant warehouse owners brought an action for the agreed price of storage relying on the exclusion clause to demonstrate that they were not liable for the damage to the goods. The defendant argued the clause had not been incorporated into the contract as he signed the document after the contract was made.
Held: The clause was incorporated through previous dealings. The defendant would have been aware of the term from the previous contracts and therefore it did form part of the contract. The claimant was entitled to payment and the defendant had no right to claim compensation for the damage to the orange juice.
Hollier v Rambler Motors 
The claimant had used the services of the defendant garage on 3-4 occasions over a five year period. Each time he had been asked to sign a document excluding liability for any damage. On this occasion the contract was made over the phone and no reference to the exclusion clause was made. The garage damaged the car during the repair work and sought to invoke the exclusion clause through previous dealings.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document