Baa215 Business And Corporate Law Assessment Answers

Answer:

Issue

The issue involved in the case is to check that whether Jenny can sue Hunter Busline for the damages occurred to her or not.

Rules

Contracts are valid when they consist all the necessary and required elements such as offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention of the parties in the case to develop a contractual relationship. According to the provisions of contract law, a contract can be either in written form or in oral form (Find Law, 2018). When parties sign a contract in writing or become agrees to fulfill the promises made to, each other in verbal mode, then a contract exists there. Under a valid contract, both the parties are required to fulfill their promises and obligations. However, the exclusion clause is another aspect of Contract Law, which is detailed as below.

Exclusion Clause: - An exclusion clause under a contract is a prior statement, which limits the liability of either party in a contract. It is a way out by choosing that any of the party can mention the limit up to, which the same can be held liable in case of any future, disputes (Legal Services Commission of South Australia, 2018). An exclusion clause in a contract can be considered as protection which law provides to the parties. It is the general rule in the area of exclusion clause that the same must be incorporated in the contract at the time of developing the contract or before the same (Taylor and Taylor, 2017).

The decision was given in the case of Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 WLR 585 is significant. In this case, the claimant received the ticket for a car park when he put the money into the machine. The ticket stated that contract of parking is subject to the terms and conditions that are mentioned inside the car park. One of the terms was there that excluded the liability of car park owner for the personal injuries arising out of the negligence. Court has provided the decision of this case treating the exclusion clause invalid. In the comments, the court stated that the exclusion clause came into the knowledge of claimant after entering into the contract. The acceptance of the case was putting money into the machine. As soon as claimant dropped the money into the ticket-printing machine, the contract was made between the claimant and car park owner. The ticket has generated after that, therefore, the exclusion clause has no validity, and the car owner would be held responsible for the personal injury of any of the customers (E-Law Resources, 2018).

Thompson v London, Midland and Scotland Railway Co [1930] 1 KB 41 is also an important case. In this case, claimant suffered from an injury while stepping out of a train. The railway company, defendant of the case displayed a notice on railway station on which it was returned clearly that railway company will not be held liable for any kind of personal injury or property lost cases that comes out of the negligence of passengers. In addition to this notice, it was also mentioned on the tickets that risk of the railway company is a subject matter if the terms and conditions mentioned in the notice board of the platform. Claimant argued that she could not read such notices and the further defendant has not made any efforts to bring such an exclusion clause in the notice of her. In the decision of the case, the court dismissed the arguments of the claimant and stated that the exclusion clause was there in the contract before the development of the contract. Further, it was not the liability of the railway company to ensure that every passenger becomes aware of such an exclusion clause (Revolvy, 2018).

Therefore, this is to conclude that an exclusion clause will be held valid if the same is incorporated in a contract at the time of development of contract or before the same and further defendant is not responsible to check out the fact that whether the claimant is aware of such clause or not.

Application

In the given case, Will and Jenny booked their tickets previously from a local travel agent. Later on, they were only required to collect the same. When these people were collecting their previously booked tickets, they were asked to sign a document. On the document, the exclusion clause of the case was written. According to the exclusion clause stated in the document, Hunter Busline was not expected to be held liable for any kind of injury of passengers.

Further, in the case, Jenny took off her seat belt and went to the baggage area to collect her book. Suddenly the driver made brakes. Cause of this, she fell on the bus and her wrist broke. In addition to this, she also suffered from a nervous shock due to this incident and this incident ruined her holiday. Here the issue is to check the time of the contract. As it is general in the contract law that a contract develops between the parties as soon as offeree gives consent. In this case, acceptance became complete as soon as Will and Jenny purchased the tickets. Applying the provision of the case, Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking, exclusion clause will be treated as unincorporated in the contract. When Jenny was collecting the tickets, the contract was already there. Further, according to the decision given in the case of Thompson v London, Midland and Scotland Railway Co it was not the liability of Hunter Busline to check that whether every person is aware of the exclusion clause or not, therefore Jenny cannot sue Hunter Busline on this basis that she was not aware of such a clause. However, she can sue Hunter Busline based on invalidity of the exclusion clause.

Conclusion:

Jenny can sue Hunter Busline for damages. Although the injury occurred her was the result of her negligence, still she can sue Hunter Busline. The reason behind this is an exclusion clause was not valid, as the same has been incorporated after the development of a valid contract.

References: 

E-Law Resources. (2018) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 WLR 585 Court of Appeal [online] Available  from: https://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Thornton-v-Shoe-Lane-Parking.php [Accessed on 23/09/18]

Find Law. (2018) What Contracts are Required to Be in Writing? [online] Available  from: https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-contracts-forms/what-contracts-are-required-to-be-in-writing.html [Accessed on 23/09/18]

Legal Services Commission of South Australia. (2018) Exclusion Clauses. [online] Available  from: https://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch10s02s06.php [Accessed on 23/09/18]

Revolvy. (2018) Thompson v London, Midland and Scottish Rly Co. [online] Available  from: https://www.revolvy.com/page/Thompson-v-London%2C-Midland-and-Scottish-Rly-Co [Accessed on 23/09/18]

Taylor, D., and Taylor, R. (2017). Contract Law Directions (6^th ed.). UK: Oxford University Press.

Thompson v London, Midland and Scotland Railway Co [1930] 1 KB 41

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 WLR 585