Commercial Law: Analyzing Exclusion Clauses in Contract Law Cases

This case study analyzes a commercial law scenario involving an exclusion clause in a parking contract. The assignment begins with a brief overview of the issue, which is whether Marcus can recover his losses from the car park company (Park Safe). The legal background focuses on the exclusion clause, highlighting its role in limiting liability within contracts. Key legal principles, such as the requirement for clear incorporation of the exclusion clause and its visibility to the contracting parties, are discussed. Relevant case law, including Curtis V Chemical Cleaning Co and Thornton V Shoe Lane Parking, is used to illustrate the application of these principles. The application section applies these legal principles to the facts of the case, emphasizing that the exclusion clause was written in small print, and therefore, not easily noticeable. The conclusion states that Marcus is entitled to recover damages because Park Safe cannot rely on the exclusion clause to avoid liability. The document concludes with a list of cited references including academic journals and case law.

Running head: COMMERCIAL AND CORPORATION LAW
Commercial and Corporation Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1COMMERCIAL AND CORPORATION LAW
Issue:
The issue in this case is related to the fact that whether Marcus is entitled to get his losses
covered by the Park Safe.
Law:
The exclusion clause is the main essential of law of contract which excludes one of the
parties to the contract from liability for a breach of contract (Ayres and Schwartz 2014). In this
regard, it is noteworthy to mention here that, the party can rely upon the exclusion clause only if
such clause has been clearly incorporated in the contract. Therefore, in order to rely upon the
exclusion clause it is important to provide reasonable evidence about the existence of the
exclusion clause in the contract (Stone and Devenney 2017). The exclusion clause is included in
the contract by notice, signature and course of dealing. In Curtis V Chemical Cleaning Co
[1951] 1 KB 805 it was observed that the wedding dress of the plaintiff was stained by the
cleaners (defendants). It was observed that the plaintiff was given a receipt which contained an
exclusion clause stating that the cleaners won’t be liable for any damage. However the Court
held that the cleaners could not escape liability as the defendants misrepresented the scope of the
exclusion clause.
Similarly it is important that the exclusion clause has to be brought to the notice of the
party. The exclusion clause should be present in such a manner so that it is clearly noticeable.
However, it is important that such exclusion clause should be brought to the attention of the
other party at the time of formation of the contract. In Thornton V Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 1
All ER 686 it was observed that when the plaintiff kept his car into the car park of the defendant,
he was given a ticket. The ticket contained certain conditions which stated that the owners of the

2COMMERCIAL AND CORPORATION LAW
car park shall not be liable for the damages and injuries caused to the vehicles and customers. It
was held by the Court that the defendants cannot escape liability by applying the exclusion
clause because it was written in small print which no reasonable person could understand.
Application:
When Marcus entered the car park he was handed with a ticket. In the back of the ticket a
list of conditions were written in smaller print which contained the exclusion clause stating that
Park Safe shall not be responsible for any damage of vehicles. It can be observed that the
exclusion clause which contained in the ticket was written in a relatively smaller print which
cannot be noticeable by a reasonable person. Therefore, due to this reason Marcus did not check
the back of the ticket. In this regard, applying the relevant case studies it can be stated that Park
Safe cannot escape their liability by applying the exclusion clause.
Conclusion:
It can be concluded that Marcus is entitled to recover damages from the car park
company for the losses.

3COMMERCIAL AND CORPORATION LAW
References:
Ayres, I. and Schwartz, A., 2014. The no-reading problem in consumer contract law. Stan. L.
Rev., 66, p.545.
Curtis V Chemical Cleaning Co [1951] 1 KB 805.
Stone, R. and Devenney, J., 2017. The modern law of contract. Routledge.
Thornton V Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 1 All ER 686.