Exclusion Clause's Case: Ryanair V. Billigfluege
Introduction
Upon initial examination of this case, it is clear that Richard is at least, partly liable for the accident, given that it was he who crashed into the traffic light. It can be assumed that he has suffered substantial loss in the process, given that he has sustained a significant injury. However, it also is evident that Saoirse is at fault on several grounds, which gives Richard scope to take legal action in an attempt to recover damages for the loss he has suffered as a consequence of this accident.
Exclusion Clause
Firstly, it must be discussed that Saoirse displayed her terms of business in her car outlining that she:
“is under no liability to her client for any accident which might, through reasonable care by the client, have been avoided”
There is no evidence suggesting that this provision was revealed to Richard, prior to his transfer of …show more content…
Although, this principle has been discarded in the past in this jurisdiction, as seen in Early v Great Southern Railway [1940] , the modern Irish stance is inclined to recognise exclusion clauses only where they are reasonably accessible, as was the case in Ryanair v Billigfluege [2015] .
With these factors considered, this principle is undoubtedly applicable in this case, as, fundamentally, Richard was unaware of this clause prior to entering into the contract, and is therefore not bound by it. Consequently, Saoirse cannot evade liability based on this clause and so Richard can in fact, seek damages from Saoirse for her liability contrary to this clause’s statement.
Incompetency and Breach of Sales of Good and Supply of Services Act
Even if hypothetically, it could be proven that Richard was bound by this clause, this case does not necessarily satisfy the criterion of the clause. It explicitly states that Saoirse is not liable in an
Upon initial examination of this case, it is clear that Richard is at least, partly liable for the accident, given that it was he who crashed into the traffic light. It can be assumed that he has suffered substantial loss in the process, given that he has sustained a significant injury. However, it also is evident that Saoirse is at fault on several grounds, which gives Richard scope to take legal action in an attempt to recover damages for the loss he has suffered as a consequence of this accident.
Exclusion Clause
Firstly, it must be discussed that Saoirse displayed her terms of business in her car outlining that she:
“is under no liability to her client for any accident which might, through reasonable care by the client, have been avoided”
There is no evidence suggesting that this provision was revealed to Richard, prior to his transfer of …show more content…
Although, this principle has been discarded in the past in this jurisdiction, as seen in Early v Great Southern Railway [1940] , the modern Irish stance is inclined to recognise exclusion clauses only where they are reasonably accessible, as was the case in Ryanair v Billigfluege [2015] .
With these factors considered, this principle is undoubtedly applicable in this case, as, fundamentally, Richard was unaware of this clause prior to entering into the contract, and is therefore not bound by it. Consequently, Saoirse cannot evade liability based on this clause and so Richard can in fact, seek damages from Saoirse for her liability contrary to this clause’s statement.
Incompetency and Breach of Sales of Good and Supply of Services Act
Even if hypothetically, it could be proven that Richard was bound by this clause, this case does not necessarily satisfy the criterion of the clause. It explicitly states that Saoirse is not liable in an