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

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Understanding the claim starts with the general principle of how exemption clauses are interpreted in contract law. 
Option 1: True. The statement asserts that for the negligence rule to apply, the exemption clause must clearly state that liability for negligence is excluded. In many jurisdictions, exemptions or limitation clauses referring to negligence must be clear and explicit to be effective; otherwise the clause may be construed as not covering negligence and thus not excluding liability for negligence. This reflects the emphasis on script clarity and the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius in the context of negligence waivers: if the contract intends to exclude negligence, it must state it plainly. 
Option 2: False. This would claim that the exemption clause does not need to clearly exclude negligence or that it can be vague and still exclude liability. The typical legal standard requires explicit wording to exclude negligence, so this option contradicts established interpretation principles. The concern with vagueness is that parties may not have truly consented to bearing the risk of negligence, and the court may interpret the clause more narrowly or strike it down as ineffective. 
In summary, the core idea is that a negligence exemption must be clear and unambiguous to be enforceable; ambiguity undermines the exclude-negligence effect, aligning with the True stance and rendering False untenable in typical contexts.

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

查看解析

登录即可查看完整答案

类似问题

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

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.

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.”

更多留学生实用工具

考试浏览器助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单