Exclusion Clauses and Liability

This assignment examines the liability of organizers for injuries sustained on a ride at a midwinter show. A key issue is an exclusion clause on the ticket, claiming the organizers are not responsible for any harm. The analysis explores contract law principles regarding the integration and enforceability of exclusion clauses, referencing relevant case law like *L'Estrange v Graucob* and *Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd*. Applying these principles to the facts, the assignment argues whether the organizers can rely on the exclusion clause to avoid liability for Yiming's injuries.

The question that needs to be decided in the present case is related with the liability of Mid
Winter Show organizers regarding the injuries that were suffered by Yiming when she fell off
the Chair-o-Lift. Now the organizers of the show are claiming that they cannot be held liable due
to the exclusion clause, that was mentioned on the back of the ticket given to Yiming and
according to which the patrons entered the Chair-o-Lift at their own risk. On the other hand,
Yiming and her friend Fatima never saw or read the exclusion clause that was written at the back
of the ticket and also on the faded notice.
Generally in the course of business transactions, one party tries to insert an exclusion clause as
such party is not willing to accept its liability for breach of contract/negligence on its part. The
law allows the parties to insert a clause in the contract to exempt or limit the liability for breach
of contract/negligence. But the party can be allowed to depend on the clause by law only if (i)
the clause has been properly integrated in the contract formed between the parties and similarly
if (ii) as a matter of construction, it extends to the laws in question. Therefore, it is also necessary
that the clause ought to be legal.
According to the first requirement, when a person wants to depend on an exclusion clause, such
person has to set up that the clause has become a part of the contract. For this purpose, the law
provides that an exclusion clause can be integrated by signature, by notice or by course of
dealing. The law provides that when a document is designed by the parties which have
contractual effect and at the same time, such document contains an exclusion clause, but clause
will automatically be added to the contract and the parties will be bound by its terms, including
the exclusion clause. This will be the case even if the other party claims that it has not read the
documents or it does not understand the document (L'Estrange v Graucob, 1934). But even a
document signed by the parties can also become wholly or partly ineffectively if it is claimed by

the other party that a misrepresentation was made about the effect of the term (Curtis v Chemical
Cleaning Co., 1951). An exclusion clause will be present in an unsigned document like a ticket
or a notice. Therefore in such cases, the legal requirement is that the other party should have
been provided reasonable and sufficient notice about the exclusion clause (Thornton v Shoe Lane
Parking Ltd., 1971). This requirement can be satisfied if (i) the exclusion clause is present in the
contract under contractual document, that is the document that would be reasonably assumed by
any reasonable person to contain the terms of the contract and not in a document that only
acknowledges the payment like a receipt (Parker v SE Railway Co., 1877). (ii) the law also
requires that the presence of exclusion clause in the contract should be brought to the notice of
the other party before such party has entered into a contract or when it is going to enter the
contract (Olley v Marlborough Court 1949) (iii) the presence of exclusion clause needs to be
brought to the other party's notice. In such cases, the requirement is not of actual notice but of
reasonable notice (Thompson v LMS Railway, 1930). In such cases, what can be described as
reasonable notice differs in each case and the circumstances of the parties. However, the courts
have repeatedly mentioned that the attention of the other party should be drawn towards the
presence of the exclusion clause in clear words and on the front of any document that is given to
the printed. For example, it can be written on such document, "For conditions, see back". The
degree of notice, that needs to be given to the other party increases in accordance with the
unusualness of the exclusion clause.
Another way to add an exclusion clause in a contract is to get the signature of the other party on
the contract carrying the clause. The law provides that when a person has signed the contract,
including the exclusion clause, such person will be bound by the clause. Even if such person
claims to have not read the clause or he did not understood the clause. Another way of

incorporating the exclusion clause in the contract is no reasonable notice. The law provides that
an exclusion clause can also be present in an unsigned document like a ticket or a notice.
However, in such cases, it is the legal requirement that sufficient and reasonable notice needs to
be given to the other party during the presence of the exclusion clause. In order to satisfy this
requirement is necessary that the exclusion was to be present in a contractual document, or the
document that would be assumed by any reasonable person to contain the terms of the contract
and not in a document that only acknowledges the payment by the other party, like a receipt
(Parker v SE Railway Co., 1877).
In the present case, two friends, Yiming and Fatima had gone to attend the midwinter show.
There was a temporary ride at the show, known as chair-o-lift that was also a part of the show
during the previous year. Yiming recognized the ride and asked Fatima to go on with him.
However, the attended forgot to tell them that the conditions related with the use of the ride have
been printed at the back of the ticket although both of them had signed the ticket. At the same
time, there was a sign placed on the central pylon on the middle of the ride that also contained
the terms and conditions but this notice was faded and moreover, it was obscured by some
advertising posters and grafitti. While riding the chair-o-ride Yiming's foot got caught in the
strap of the seat, and therefore he fell nearly 2 meters off the platform. He cracked his teeth and
also suffered fractures in his hand and arm. When Yiming right to sue the organizers of Mid
Winter Show for the injuries suffered by him, the organizers claimed that they cannot be held
responsible as a result of the exclusion clause that was present on the back of the ticket according
to which the owners and operators of the ride. Accept no liability for the injuries that may be
suffered by the patrons howsoever caused. In view of the above discussion, the exclusion clause

can be considered as a part of the contract. Therefore, the organizers of midwinter show cannot
be allowed to rely on the exclusion clause.
Hence, Yiming may successful sue the organizers of Mid Winter Show for the injuries suffered
by him.

References
Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co [1951] 1 KB 805
L'Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394
Olley v Marlborough Court [1949] 1 KB 532
Parker v SE Railway Co (1877) 2 CPD 416
Parker v SE Railway Co (1877) 2 CPD 416
Thompson v LMS Railway [1930] 1 KB 41
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163