THE LAW OF CONTRACT

The Law of Contract



The Law of Contract

Mogul Gas Co. Plc has a network of gas stations in the South East of England. The company has recently installed automatic car washes in ten of its sites. Posted in a conspicuous place "Start the machine for each car wash is the following observation: To discuss the responsibility of the company (if any) for this accident.

Ans. Referring to the scenario Mogul Gas Co, will be responsible for a malfunctioed system because it is negligence on their part not to check tightness of bolts of the cleaner which is an essential requirement. However, the condition "Disclaimer Notice" only provides protection for the Mogul Gas Co., when their operations are performed in normal conditions. Noting the fact, the House of Lords held in 1963 that the duty of care in making the statement was legally possible. "Special relationship" ordinary principles of Donoghue V Stevenson does not apply to negligent misstatement.

In order for there to be a duty of care not to make careless distortion, should be "special relationship" between the parties. In Caparo PLC V Dickman, Lord Oliver said that the need of relations will have four characteristics: 1. Councilor actually or inferentially knew that necessary consultations for the purposes of 2. Advisor to know that the council will be brought to advisee; was known that the council will act advisee without independent investigation, and he was under the influence of his advisee damage. Persons to whom the debt is owed, or the persons to whom the debt is owed discussed in Caparo PLC V Dickman, which differed in the Court of Appeal. Advising on the social time will have no obligations with respect to advice requested and given on a purely social relationships, and responsibility has been imposed on other assessments used car for the plaintiff. "Accepting responsibility" principle of duty of care in tort may coexist with the treaty obligation, where there was an assumption of liability in connection with the provision of services.

The principle of "taking responsibility" has been expanded beyond the responsibility for the statements, for example, the House of Lords to a lawyer, who was held to be a special relationship with the intended beneficiaries will be. The Court of Appeal recently followed White V Jones in the case involving an insurance company advising clients on the pensions and life insurance: Gorham V British Telecom [2000] was Helt, that failures consultants can protect yourself from liability, for example, in Hedley Byrne information has been provided "without responsibility." Today, S2 (2) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 provides that a person can not with one of the conditions of the contract or notice limit its liability for loss or damage, except for injuries (which can not be excluded) caused by negligence in the course of business if it shows that the term or notice is reasonable. This matter was considered by the House of Lords Smith V Eric Bush (see ...