Ucta Requirements Notes
This is a short sample from our Contract Law Notes collection which contains 475 pages of notes in total. If you find this useful you might like to consider purchasing our Contract Law Notes.
|Pages In Full Document||12|
|Original Document File Type:||Word (Docx) (Conversion to PDF is available post purchase if required)|
|Price:||Part of a package Contract Law Notes containing 199 other documents which retails for £24.99.|
The original file is a 'Word (Docx)' whilst this sample is a 'PDF' representation of said file. This means that the formatting here may have errors. The original document you'll receive on purchase should have more polished formatting.
Ucta Requirements RevisionThe following is a plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Contract Law Notes. This text version has had its formatting removed so pay attention to its contents alone rather than its presentation. The version you download will have its original formatting intact and so will be much prettier to look at.
Claims in Negligence • Is there business liability?(s.1 UCTA) o S.1(3) Breach of obligation or duties arising S.1(3)(a) from things done or to be done in the course of a person's business S.1(3)(b) or from the occupation of premises used for business purposes of the occupier S.14(a): business = a profession and the activities of any government department or local or public authority o If NO = UCTA has no application o If YES = Continue to next question
• Claim in negligence (s.2 UCTA) o Personal Injury S.2(1) Person cannot be reference to any contract term or notice given • Exclude or restrict his liability for personal injury or death from negligence o Other Loss or damage S.2(2) Person cannot exclude liability for this damage • Unless he satisfies the reasonableness test: o S.11 (3) should be fair and reasonable to allow reliance on notice/term • having regard to all the circumstances obtaining when the liability would have arisen. Phillips Products Ltd v Hyland  H hired out excavator to P with operator. Operator negligently damaged P's chimney. H tried to exclude liability by clause in contract which made P responsible for all actions of Operator during hire. H argued that they had transferred liability to P • Slade LJ: o Ordinary and sensible meaning of the words in context of s.2(2) Mean that transfer of liability from A to B necessarily and inevitably involves the exclusion of liability so far as A is concerned. o Ergo, test falls within ambit of s.2(2) and is subject to reasonableness test. Thompson v T Lohan (Plant Hire) Ltd  Similar fact and exclusion above, except X was killed by negligent driving of operator. C sued H (hirer) who pointed to exclusion clause transferring liability to hiree (L). • Fox LJ o UCTA 1977 s.2(1) not concerned with arrangements between businesses about who will bear liability It is only concerned with preventing the victim from having liability excluded in totality. o No exclusion here - merely arrangement between H and L about who will take consequences of negligence. • Burrows: Key difference = on facts of case o Exclusion of liability to H in this case did not operate to
transfer any liability from the tortfeasor To the actual victim of the tort (as in Phillips) • But to a third party not injured by the tort. o Thus UCTA s.2 had no application.
****************************End Of Sample*****************************
Buy the full version of these notes and essays alongside much more in our Contract Law Notes.