This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

London Drugs Ltd v Kuehne & Nagel International [1993] 97 DLR (4th) 261

By Oxbridge Law TeamUpdated 04/01/2024 06:59

Judgement for the case London Drugs Ltd v Kuehne & Nagel International

Table Of Contents

  • Defendant was storing a transformer owned by Plaintiff valued at $32,000. The agreement between the parties included a limitation of liability clause which limited liability for damage to the transformer to $40.

  • Two employees were moving the transformer with a forklift and negligently dropped it.

  • London Drugs sued the two employees on the basis that they owed a separate duty of care and could not seek protection under the contract.

  • Supreme court held that the employers, despite not being mentioned themselves in the contract, were exempted. Exemption clauses could be relied on by employees of a company where:

(1) the limitation of liability clause must, either expressly or impliedly, extend its benefit to the employee(s) seeking to rely on it; and

(2) the employee(s) seeking the benefit of the limitation of liability clause must have been acting in the course of their employment and must have been performing the very services provided for in the contract between their employer and the plaintiff when the loss occurred.

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

For Further Study on London Drugs Ltd v Kuehne & Nagel International

Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.

Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️

Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.

Get Started

Related Product Samples

These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.

Claim every advantage to get a first in law
Contract Law Notes
1,511 total pages
744 purchased

Contract law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...