FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 3,491 times | Saved to 310 briefcases
Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd, [1980] UKHL 2

Facts:

S supplied night patrolman for P. He lit a fire and burnt down building. S had limitation clause saying they would not be liable for acts of employees unless it could have been foreseen

Issue(s):

Can the exclusion or limiting clause be invoked?

Ratio:

True construction of the contract is the proper approach – you construe the contract – what does the clause say you must interpret it. (look at the words themselves and the intention of the parties) – even if major breach.
**Court said because of Suisse Atlantique notion of Fundamental Breach no longer law

Analysis:

Look at clause and if it was intended to apply to this breach, apply it and if not, don’t - determine if applies through true construction of the contract.
In the event of a breach, if the breach is important enough, they have a right to treat the contract at an end and sue for damages.

Holding:

The words are clear – S could rely on the clause


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.