Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Ucta Requirements Notes

Law Notes > Contract Law Notes

This is an extract of our Ucta Requirements document, which we sell as part of our Contract Law Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Contract Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

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 [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: 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 [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 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.

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Contract Law Notes.

More Contract Law Samples