Liability of Mid Winter Show Organizers †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Liability of Mid Winter Show Organizers. Answer: The question that needs to be decided in the present case is related with the liability of Mid Winter Show organizers regarding the injuries that were suffered by Yiming when she fell off the Chair-o-Lift. Now the organizers of the show are claiming that they cannot be held liable due to the exclusion clause, that was mentioned on the back of the ticket given to Yiming and according to which the patrons entered the Chair-o-Lift at their own risk. On the other hand, Yiming and her friend Fatima never saw or read the exclusion clause that was written at the back of the ticket and also on the faded notice. Generally in the course of business transactions, one party tries to insert an exclusion clause as such party is not willing to accept its liability for breach of contract/negligence on its part. The law allows the parties to insert a clause in the contract to exempt or limit the liability for breach of contract/negligence. But the party can be allowed to depend on the clause by law only if (i) the clause has been properly integrated in the contract formed between the parties and similarly if (ii) as a matter of construction, it extends to the laws in question. Therefore, it is also necessary that the clause ought to be legal. According to the first requirement, when a person wants to depend on an exclusion clause, such person has to set up that the clause has become a part of the contract. For this purpose, the law provides that an exclusion clause can be integrated by signature, by notice or by course of dealing. The law provides that when a document is designed by the parties which have contractual effect and at the same time, such document contains an exclusion clause, but clause will automatically be added to the contract and the parties will be bound by its terms, including the exclusion clause. This will be the case even if the other party claims that it has not read the documents or it does not understand the document (L'Estrange v Graucob, 1934). But even a document signed by the parties can also become wholly or partly ineffectively if it is claimed by the other party that a misrepresentation was made about the effect of the term (Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co., 1951). An exclusion clause will be present in an unsigned document like a ticket or a notice. Therefore in such cases, the legal requirement is that the other party should have been provided reasonable and sufficient notice about the exclusion clause (Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd., 1971). This requirement can be satisfied if (i) the exclusion clause is present in the contract under contractual document, that is the document that would be reasonably assumed by any reasonable person to contain the terms of the contract and not in a document that only acknowledges the payment like a receipt (Parker v SE Railway Co., 1877). (ii) the law also requires that the presence of exclusion clause in the contract should be brought to the notice of the other party before such party has entered into a contract or when it is going to enter the contract (Olley v Marlborough Court 1949) (iii) the presence of exclusion clause needs to be brought to the other party's notice. In such cases, the requirement is not of actual notice but of reasonable notice (Thompson v LMS Railway, 1930). In such cases, what can be described as reasonable notice differs in each case and the circumstances of the parties. However, the courts have repeatedly mentioned that the attention of the other party should be drawn towards the presence of the exclusion clause in clear words and on the front of any document that is given to the printed. For example, it can be written on such document, "For conditions, see back". The degree of notice, that needs to be given to the other party increases in accordance with the unusualness of the exclusion clause. Another way to add an exclusion clause in a contract is to get the signature of the other party on the contract carrying the clause. The law provides that when a person has signed the contract, including the exclusion clause, such person will be bound by the clause. Even if such person claims to have not read the clause or he did not understood the clause. Another way of incorporating the exclusion clause in the contract is no reasonable notice. The law provides that an exclusion clause can also be present in an unsigned document like a ticket or a notice. However, in such cases, it is the legal requirement that sufficient and reasonable notice needs to be given to the other party during the presence of the exclusion clause. In order to satisfy this requirement is necessary that the exclusion was to be present in a contractual document, or the document that would be assumed by any reasonable person to contain the terms of the contract and not in a document that only acknowledges the payment by the other party, like a receipt (Parker v SE Railway Co., 1877). In the present case, two friends, Yiming and Fatima had gone to attend the midwinter show. There was a temporary ride at the show, known as chair-o-lift that was also a part of the show during the previous year. Yiming recognized the ride and asked Fatima to go on with him. However, the attended forgot to tell them that the conditions related with the use of the ride have been printed at the back of the ticket although both of them had signed the ticket. At the same time, there was a sign placed on the central pylon on the middle of the ride that also contained the terms and conditions but this notice was faded and moreover, it was obscured by some advertising posters and grafitti. While riding the chair-o-ride Yiming's foot got caught in the strap of the seat, and therefore he fell nearly 2 meters off the platform. He cracked his teeth and also suffered fractures in his hand and arm. When Yiming right to sue the organizers of Mid Winter Show for the injuries suffered by him, the org anizers claimed that they cannot be held responsible as a result of the exclusion clause that was present on the back of the ticket according to which the owners and operators of the ride. Accept no liability for the injuries that may be suffered by the patrons howsoever caused. In view of the above discussion, the exclusion clause can be considered as a part of the contract. Therefore, the organizers of midwinter show cannot be allowed to rely on the exclusion clause. Hence, Yiming may successful sue the organizers of Mid Winter Show for the injuries suffered by him. References Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co [1951] 1 KB 805 L'Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394 Olley v Marlborough Court [1949] 1 KB 532 Parker v SE Railway Co (1877) 2 CPD 416 Parker v SE Railway Co (1877) 2 CPD 416 Thompson v LMS Railway [1930] 1 KB 41 Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163