Customs Brokers v United Dominion Trusts

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
BUSINESS LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

BUSINESS LAW1
Assignment
Issue
The primary issue in the given scenario is what may be the legal implications in relation
to Homer and the importance in relation to exclusion clauses.
Rule
The case of L’Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394 shall be considered to be a
significant case in this regard. In this case, a cigarette machine was purchased by the plaintiff
from defendant for the café of the plaintiff. The plaintiff contracted an agreement of sales, and
put her signature on a tiny printed paper, without properly reading the paper. In the agreement it
was stated that any particular statement, warranty or condition (implied or expressed) shall be
excluded. The machine did not function adequately. Regarding an action in relation to the
violation of the warranty, it was held that the exclusion clause shall protect the
defendants. However, afterwards this notion was changed.
The case of Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co [1951] 1 KB 805 shall be considered to be a
significant case in this regard. In this case, the plaintiff gave wedding dress to the defendants for
the purposes of cleaning. A receipt was signed by the plaintiff, after the assistant told the plaintiff
that the cleaners shall be exempted from the accountability in relation to any damage that may be
caused to the sequins and beads. However, there was a clause in the receipt, which provided
exclusion in relation to any particular damage that may arise. The dress was severely blemished
during its return. It was discovered that the defendants shall be accountable in relation to the
damage caused regarding the substance of that dress because the scope of the exception clause
had been falsified and misrepresented by the assistant of the defendant.

BUSINESS LAW2
The case of Olley v Marlborough Court [1949] 1 KB 532 shall be considered to be an
important case in this regard. In this case, a stay for a week had been booked by the plaintiff at
the hotel of the defendant. A stranger somehow entered the room of the plaintiff and took the
mink coat of the plaintiff. A notice was present on the backside of the door of the bedroom, on
which it was mentioned that the proprietors shall not be accountable in relation to the articles that
might get stolen or lost, except when the articles are given to the manager for the purposes of
safe custody. It was held by the Court of Appeal that the notice had not been assimilated into the
contract that has been established between the guest and the proprietor. The contract had been
established in the hall area of hotel, that is, prior to the time when the plaintiff went to her
bedroom and prior to the time when the plaintiff had the chance to perceive the notice.
The case of Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177 shall be considered to be a significant case
in this regard. In this case, a land had been purchased by the plaintiff from in order to do sheep
farming. When the negotiations were in process, it was stated by the defendant that if work on
the land was done properly, then the land shall be able to carry at least two thousand sheep. The
land had been purchased by the plaintiff because he believed that land would carry two thousand
sheep. Both the parties had knowledge that defendant never carried on farming of sheep on that
particular land. Under normal circumstances, the statement made by the defendant would have
been considered to be a ‘statement of fact’. However, under the special circumstances of this
particular case, it was held that if there is no presence of fraud, then the purchaser shall not
possess any right to cancel the contract.
The case of McCutcheon v MacBrayne [1964] 1 WLR 125 shall be considered to be a
relevant case in this regard. In this case, the exclusion clauses were provided in twenty seven
paragraphs in a tiny print, which were contained outside and inside an office of ferry booking,