Similar clauses are commonly found on such packets, sometimes the ‘right’
way up, sometimes at right angles, and always in small print (remember Lord
Denning in Thornton – see Chapter 6, pp. 100 and 101). The following case
concerns one of these packets.
Exemption clauses 125and the building had not been properly supported, and in the case of
Harris v Wyre Forest subsidence occurred, costing more than the value of
the property in repair. It was held that the surveyor could not rely on the
exemption clause, since the house in each case was of a usual kind, and
the task of valuation was not difficult. It was the responsibility of the
surveyor to carry out the task with professional care, and in any case
insurance could be taken out against claims of negligence.O’Brien v Mirror Group (2001)
A reader of a newspaper held a winning number on a scratch card.
However, due to a printing error, a large number of other readers had the
same winning number on that occasion. The claimant had not read the
terms, in another day’s edition of the newspaper, that included a statement
that in such a situation winnings would be shared, not paid in full to each
winner. Even though the claimant had not actually seen this term, it was
held that there had been reasonable opportunity to do so. It was therefore
reasonably brought to readers’ attention and it was unreasonable to expect
such winnings. The court also took into account the fact that the claimant
did not have to do very much to ‘earn’ the winnings. The Mirror Group
were therefore held not liable for the large payments.On the back a packet in which films are sent away for developing the
following terms are found, in very very small print, at right angles to the main
form which is completed by the customer, ‘The company limits any liability
for loss or damage to films to twice the cost of the materials.’
Do you think that this is a reasonable term?Winning
ticket
Winning
ticketWinning
ticket
Winning
ticketWinning
ticketWinning
ticketWinning
ticket