24/7 writing help on your phone
Save to my list
Remove from my list
The major issues are whether the exemption clause for skydiving centre is valid and whether the skydiving centre is liable for Rein’s injury.
The exemption clause excluded skydiving centre’s liability for a breach of contract and possibly negligence. However, the clause must be examined by the following facts: firstly, whether the exemption clause includes in the contract when the contract was formed and whether the party has been informed or noticed. Secondly, whether the words included in the clause are appropriate.
Thirdly, under what circumstance the
incident is happened.
According to Jeffrey et al’, when a person signed a contract in all the terms which includes any exclusion clause was bound, no matter the person had read or not. Although Rein signed the form without reading it, the clause was still bound with the contract no matter Rein read it or not, which was related to the case of L’Estrange VF Graucob Ltd?. In this case, Rein did not hear when the Centre Manager told Jen that the form needed to be signed before they were allowed to take their parachutes.
Also, he missed the signboard with the clause displayed after they put the equipment on, and they signed the contract before they boarded the flight which differed with the case of Balmain New Ferry Co v Robertson”. Instead, in this case, in order to be constructive notices, those notice boards should be displayed at counter or somewhere
the customers could easily notice before the contract was made.
Therefore the contract should be formed after the notice Olley v Marlborough Court“.
Whether the clause covered contractual liability and negligence liability?
Although Rein was injured because of the inadequate goggles provided by the skydiving centre, the skydiving centre might not be liable for Rein’s injury. Because it covered for both contractual and negligence liability in the exemption clause by applying the clear words “no matter how those injuries may be caused” which differed with Alex Kay Pty Lty v General Motors Acceptance Corporation that the clause was ambiguous. Therefore, the exclusion clause displayed is enforceable. The works included in the clause are appropriate.
Lastly, the accident was caused, due to the goggles provided by the skydiving centre, were inadequate for the intended purpose. Moreover, exception clause would only exclude liability for negligence unless specific states. Therefore, Rein’s accident happened is due to negligence.
Conclusion and suggestions:
In conclusion, in this case, the exemption clause for skydiving centre is not valid and the skydiving centre is liable for Rein’s injury. Because of the contract is formed after the contract is made, therefore the clause was not bond to the contract.
The answer could be no difference if Rein is 17 years old. According to Jeffrey et alo, minor was not subjective to legal recognition as they were lack of the capacity to make a contract. What is more, there are two exceptions – ‘necessaries’ and
‘beneficial contracts of service’ which are not related to this case. Since the contract
Rein received by the skydiving centre was a “trading contract, the contract would not bind Rein. Therefore, in this scenario, the clause was not valid and the centre was
liable for Rein’s injury.
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.get help with your assignment