Clear words must be used if a party is seeking to exclude liability resulting from its own negligence. The requirement is most obviously resolved where the word 'negligence' itself is used but it may be possible to use more general words, which are wide enough to cover liability for negligence. The duty of the court, in approaching the construction of clauses purporting to exclude liability for negligence, was summarised by [who]in the Privy Council case of Canada Steamship Lines v R [1952] AC 192.
Answer
Lord Morton
Tags
#contract #exemption #law
Question
Clear words must be used if a party is seeking to exclude liability resulting from its own negligence. The requirement is most obviously resolved where the word 'negligence' itself is used but it may be possible to use more general words, which are wide enough to cover liability for negligence. The duty of the court, in approaching the construction of clauses purporting to exclude liability for negligence, was summarised by [who]in the Privy Council case of Canada Steamship Lines v R [1952] AC 192.
Answer
?
Tags
#contract #exemption #law
Question
Clear words must be used if a party is seeking to exclude liability resulting from its own negligence. The requirement is most obviously resolved where the word 'negligence' itself is used but it may be possible to use more general words, which are wide enough to cover liability for negligence. The duty of the court, in approaching the construction of clauses purporting to exclude liability for negligence, was summarised by [who]in the Privy Council case of Canada Steamship Lines v R [1952] AC 192.
Answer
Lord Morton
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it d but it may be possible to use more general words, which are wide enough to cover liability for negligence. The duty of the court, in approaching the construction of clauses purporting to exclude liability for negligence, was summarised by <span>Lord Morton in the Privy Council case of Canada Steamship Lines v R [1952] AC 192.<span><body><html>
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.