This case concluded that under the ambiguity rule, an exemption clause that excludes liability for breach of warranty will not be sufficient against liability for breach of condition.

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The task presents a case note and identifies a correct option as 'b. Wallis, Son & Wells v Pratt & Haynes', but the provided data does not include any answer options to analyze besides that label.

Restating the prompt: the statement describes a legal principle under the ambiguity rule, namely that an exemption clause excluding liability for breach of warranty will not be sufficient to shield against liability for breach of a condition. The answer given points to Wallis, Son & Wells v Pratt & Haynes as the cited authority.

Because no answer options are actually listed in the data, we cannot evaluate each option, compare them, or explain why one is correct relative to the others. However, we can discuss the underlying legal idea at a high level in general terms.

High-level analysis of the concept:
- Ambiguity rule context: When contract terms are ambiguous, courts often construe them in favor of the party who did not draft the clause, and may interpret or limit exemptions against non-redeemable breaches. This can affect how an exclusion clause is applied to different kinds of breaches.
- Exemption clauses vs breach types: A clause that attempts to exclude liability for breach of warranty (a less fundamental term) may be interpreted differently from a clause attempting to exclude liability for breach of a condition or an innominate term. Courts have sometimes refused to allow broad exemptions to excuse breaches of fundamental terms, especially where the breach goes to essential aspects of the contract.
- Breach of warranty vs breach of condition distinction: Breach of condition concerns a term essential to the contract’s core purpose; breach of warranty concerns a less central term. Exclusion clauses that cover warranties may be limited in effect if the breach is of a condition, particularly when ambiguity or drafting uncertainties arise.

Why the cited case might be used:
- Wallis, Son & Wells v Pratt & Haynes is cited here as the authority for the proposition that, under an ambiguity rule, a clause that excludes liability for breach of warranty does not automatically shield against liability for breach of a condition. The court’s reasoning would typically involve interpreting the clause against the background of the contract and applying principles of construction to resolve ambiguity, ultimately limiting the scope of the exemption when the breach concerns a fundamental term.

Why other hypothetical options (not provided) might be incorrect:
- If another option claimed that exemption clauses always cover all breaches regardless of breach type, that would conflict with the fundamental term concept and ambiguity-based interpretation.
- If an option asserted that warranty breaches and condition breaches are treated identically for exemption clauses, it would ignore the core distinction between warranties and conditions in contract law.
- If an option suggested that ambiguity never affects exemption clauses, it would be too broad and contradict case-law principles about construction and interpretation.

In summary, the core idea is that the remedy or shield offered by an exemption clause is not absolute when the breach concerns a condition and ambiguity exists; Wallis, Son & Wells v Pratt & Haynes is invoked as the authority supporting that nuanced position.

MCD2070 - T2 - 2025 Express Terms and Exemption Clauses Quiz

This case concluded that under the ambiguity rule, an exemption clause that excludes liability for breach of warranty will not be sufficient against liability for breach of condition.

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

The rules to interpreting exclusions clauses include the ambiguity rule, negligence rule, presumption against fundamental breach and four corners rule.

A parking lot who is liable for negligence CANNOT be sued if the exclusion clause states: “Cars parked at owner’s risk. No liability is accepted for any damage caused to any person, vehicle or visitor howsoever caused.”

The rules to interpreting exclusions clauses include the ambiguity rule, negligence rule, presumption against fundamental breach and four corners rule.

A parking lot who is liable for negligence CANNOT be sued if the exclusion clause states: “Cars parked at owner’s risk. No liability is accepted for any damage caused to any person, vehicle or visitor howsoever caused.”

Under Australian law, which of the following best outlines when an unsigned exclusion clause may be enforceable in a project contract as discussed in class?

Which of the following is not a requirement for an exclusion clause to be valid?

A parking lot who is liable for negligence CANNOT be sued if the exclusion clause states: “Cars parked at owner’s risk. No liability is accepted for any damage caused to any person, vehicle or visitor howsoever caused.”

For the negligence rule to apply, the exemption clause must make it clear that liability for negligence is excluded.

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler