|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
Derek owns a go-kart track which he hires out to parties per hour. Derek provides the kart and safety equipment but makes everyone sign a form excluding himself from any liability. Although having been told safety instructions with regards to speed and overtaking Katie crashes and breaks her leg. Derek also has a sign hanging in the changing rooms stating that all property is left at the owner’s risk and that no liability is accepted for any theft or loss. Ironically, while Katie was out racing her locker was broken into and her watch along with £200 cash was stolen. At first sight it mite seem that Derek has successfully managed to completely exclude himself from any damages that Katie might claim as a result of her injuries and theft from the locker. In practice, however, this is not the case… In order to establish what the legal positions are of both Derek and Katie, it must first be established what contracts have taken place and what the meaning of those contracts are. Contracts are a legally binding agreement that arises as a result of offer and acceptance – (arguably) two forms of contracts have arisen in this case. Firstly, Derek has Katie sign a form acknowledging that “I (Katie in this case) understand that I may suffer serious personal injury but I undertake this at my own risk and ‘Krazy Karts’ is not legally responsible or liable”. Secondly, there is a sign hung in the changing rooms stating that “No liability is accepted for any thefts or loss – all property is left at the owner’s risk”. The latter will be returned to at a later stage, as it can be argued that in exclusion by notice, no contract actually takes place. When Katie crashed and broke her leg, Derek would assume that he was exempt from liability due to the form, a contractual agreement, that he had Katie sign before she started racing. The exclusion clause in the contractual agreement sought to exclude Derek from all liability regarding personal injury. The common-law approach to this would have been in essence to uphold the exclusion clause, simply due to freedom of contract – the philosophy that the parties were free to negotiate their contracts on whatever terms they deems appropriate and are able to agree on.
Approximate Word count = 1457
Approximate Pages = 5.8
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|