Claims in Negligence
Is there business liability?(s.1 UCTA)
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
If NO = UCTA has no application
If YES = Continue to next question
Claim in negligence (s.2 UCTA)
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
Other Loss or damage
S.2(2) Person cannot exclude liability for this damage
Unless he satisfies the reasonableness test:
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 [1987] 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:
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.
Ergo, test falls within ambit of s.2(2) and is subject to reasonableness test.
Thompson v T Lohan (Plant Hire) Ltd [1987] 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
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.
No exclusion here – merely arrangement between H and L about who will take consequences of negligence.
Burrows: Key difference = on facts of case
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.
Thus UCTA s.2 had no application.
Claims in Contract under UCTA 1977
Is there business liability?(s.1 UCTA)
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
If NO = UCTA has no application but UTCCR might – continue to blue
If YES = Continue to next question
Are you a consumer? (UCTA s.12 and s.3)(UTCCR reg3(1))
IF YOU
S.12(1)(a) neither make the contract in the course of a business nor hold yourself out as doing so;
R & B Customs Brokers v UDT [1988]: C (business) bought company car for managing director of shipping company. Was defective, but D excluded all defectiveness liability.
Dillon LJ:
“Course of business” should be construed narrowly.
Should only apply when
The chattel should be an integral part of the business (here, car is not integral part of C’s shipping company)
With a degree of regularity with its use
Unless that one off activity would itself constitute a trade.
Therefore, matters merely incidental to the business
Are not “in the course of” it.
And C therefore falls within consumer protection for UCTA 1977.
Burrows:
Strongly arguable that companies always deal within course of business
Purchase of car was for purposes related to the business, if not integral part thereof.
Isn’t it better that a consumer is construed narrowly per UTCCR reg.3(1)?
AND S.12(1)(b) the other party does make the contract in the course of a business; AND
AND S.12(2)(a)+(b) you aren’t buying goods sold by auction or by competitive tender.
AND S.12(3) The party alleging you aren’t a consumer can’t prove it
You are a consumer for the purposes of UCTA 1977
IF NOT
Are you acting on the other’s written standard terms of business?
IF YES: then you may have remedies within s.3 and s.6 + 7 and s.13 of UCTA 1977 (but none with UTCCR).
IF NOT: Act has no application in contract
S.3(1) This section only applies where one party deals as a consumer
Or on the other’s written standard terms of business.
Where C is not acting in the course of business (and therefore is acting as a consumer) and D is: Remedies
Unfair indemnity (UCTA 1977 s.4)
S.4(1) Consumer cannot by any contract term
be made to indemnify any person (whether contracting party of third party)
in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract,
except to extent contract term satisfies reasonableness test.
S.11(1) In relation to a contract term, the requirement of reasonableness
is that the term shall have been a fair and reasonable one to be included
having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been,
known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made.
S.4(2) This section applies whether the liability in question—
(a) is directly that of the person to be indemnified or is incurred by him vicariously;
(b) is to the person dealing as consumer or to someone else.
Disputes arising from guarantees of goods (s.5)
Are the goods within “consumer use”?
They are when
S.5(2)(a)
a person is using them, or has them in his possession for use,
NOT exclusively for the purposes of a business;
IF SO
Is there a guarantee given by other party?
s.5(2)(b)
Guarantee = anything in writing
if it contains/purports some promise or assurance that defects will be made good...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.