Assignment: Business Law (Doc)

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

1BUSINESS LAW
Issue:
The issue in this case is regarding the fact that whether Mike would be protected by the
presence of exclusion clause in the invoice if John brings an action of claim against Mike’s Auto.
Rule:
In Balmain New Ferry Co Ltd v Robertson, it was held that exclusion clause must be
incorporated in the contract and the parties should be provided sufficient notice. In Thornton V
Shoe Lane Parking, it was held that it is important to bring the exclusion clause to the sufficient
notice of the parties as it was written in such small print that the plaintiff could not notice. In
Spurling V Bradshaw, it was observed that the plaintiffs wanted to escape liability for negligent
act with the help of exclusion clause. It was held that the document containing exclusion clause
was not brought to the notice of the defendants. In Curtis V Chemical Cleaning Co, it was held
that the cleaners could not escape liability by relying upon the exclusion clause because an
invoice is not a contract.
Application:
In Balmain New Ferry Co Ltd v Robertson1 case it was held that it is important to bring
the exclusion clause to the sufficient notice of the parties. Similarly, in the present case, the
invoice that has been given to John did not provide sufficient notice regarding the presence of
exclusion clause that Mike’s Auto shall not be responsible for the damage caused to the
customer’s cars by fire or theft.
1 (1906) 4 CLR 379.