Business Law: Exclusion Clause Analysis and Case Study - University

This case study analyzes a business law scenario involving Mike's Auto and a customer named John. The central issue revolves around the enforceability of an exclusion clause in the context of damage and theft of John's car due to negligence. The analysis references key legal precedents, including Balmain New Ferry Co. Ltd. v. Robertson, Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking, Spurling v. Bradshaw, and Curtis v. Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co., to determine whether the exclusion clause was properly brought to John's attention. The study concludes that Mike's Auto is unlikely to be protected by the exclusion clause, as the clause was not sufficiently communicated to John, and therefore, John may have grounds to sue Mike's Auto for damages. The case study highlights the importance of clear communication and proper notice in contract law, especially regarding exclusion clauses.

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.

2BUSINESS LAW
In Thornton V Shoe Lane Parking2 case, it was held that the exclusion clause should be
written in such way so that it comes to the notice of the parties. Similarly, in the present scenario,
the writings of the sign on the wall behind the counter were written in such a manner which was
impossible for John to notice. Therefore, the exclusion clause was not brought to the sufficient
notice of the parties.
In Spurling V Bradshaw3 case, that the plaintiffs had an intention to escape liability for
negligent act using the exclusion clause however; they could not do so because the exclusion
clause was not brought to the notice of the defendant. Similarly, in the present case, John’s car
was damaged and at the same time the GPS was stolen as a result of negligent act on the part of
Mike’s auto.
In Curtis V Chemical Cleaning Co4 case, it was held that the defendant could not escape
liability by relying upon the exclusion clause written in the invoice because an invoice cannot be
considered as a contract. Similarly, in the present case, the invoice containing the exclusion
clause that has been issued to John for signing cannot be relied upon as an invoice is not a
contract.
Conclusion:
In the conclusion, it can be stated that Mike would not be protected under the exclusion
clause if John brings an action of claim against Mike’s Auto. In such case, John can sue Mike for
damages.
2 [1970] EWCA Civ 2.
3 [1956] 1 WLR 461.
4 [1951] 1 KB 805.

3BUSINESS LAW
References:
Balmain Ferry v Robertson (1906) 4 CLR 379.
Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co [1951] 1 KB 805.
Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461.
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ 2.