Business Law Practice

The assignment content discusses three practice questions on business law, specifically focusing on unfair contract terms and implied terms in employment contracts. Question 1 explores whether Yan Xiang can claim damage from a bus driver due to breach of contract, citing the provision of exclusion clause under Singapore Contract Act. Question 2 examines whether Zi Xin can breach implied terms of an employment contract without violating public policy. Finally, question 3 discusses the effects of excluding liability clauses, applying the principle of volenti non fit injuria.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
Unfair Contract Terms
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author note

1BUSINESS LAW
Week 4 practice question 1
Issue:
The main issue of the question is whether Yan Xiang can claim damage from the bus
driver or not.
Rules:
The subject matter of the case is attracting the provisions of exclusion clause. Chapter
8 of the Singapore Contract is deals with the provision of exclusion clause. By this clause, the
parties to a contract can exclude their liability. The term has been defined under the provision
of Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
Application:
In this case, contract has been made in between Yan Xiang and the bus driver and the
provision regarding the liability of the bus was mentioned inside the bus. Therefore, it was
not known to Yan Xiang when contract was being made with the bus driver. No one told him
about the provision that is mentioned in the backside of the ticket.
Conclusion:
Therefore, it can be said that Yan Xiang has the right to claim damage in the ground
of breach of contract.

2BUSINESS LAW
Answer to question 2
Issue:
The issue of the case is whether Zi Xin can breach the implied terms of the
employment contract or not.
Rule:
The matter of the case is based on implied terms of contract. it has been stated under
the Singapore Contract Act that the terms of employment contract that are implied in nature
should not be against the public policy.
Application:
In this case, implied terms of the employment contract have been violated.
Conclusion:
Therefore, breach had been made.
Answer to question 3
Issue:
Issue of the case is what the effects of exclusion of liability clause are.
Rules:
The provision regarding volenti non fit injuria is applicable here. in Morris v Murray
[1990] 3 All ER 801, the principle was observed.

3BUSINESS LAW
Application:
In case of flying fox, there was a risk and knowing the fact, Edison boarded in it.
Conclusion:
Therefore, it is held that Nelson can be released under the provision of volenti non fit
injuria.