| Limitation Clause instead of Exclusion Clause à court should not strain the meaning of words |
Ailsa Craig Fishing Co Ltd v Malvern Fishing Co Ltd and Securicor (Scotland) Ltd. [1983] 1 All E.R. 101 |
甲方船給乙方看守，合約有 clause 設乙方之責任上限，不論是因 negligence (tort law) 或 breach of contract (Contract Law)衍生 |
| Exemption Clause – by signing without reading |
L’Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 K.B. 394 |
買香煙售賣機冇留意免責條文就簽，敗訴 |
| Exemption Clause – by signing – not determining factor |
Tilden Rent-a Car Co v Clendenning |
甲從乙租車用，保險之免賠條款不適用於因車子駛離 highway 或因犯罪導致之撞車意外，但乙方只說該免賠條款只不適用於因犯罪導致之撞車，甲簽了。其後甲不小心撞車，不涉及犯罪但乙要甲賠償，官判甲不用賠償。 |
| Exemption Clause – by Notice – reasonable steps to bring to the notice of other party |
Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877) 2 CPD 416 |
甲存放手袋於車站衣帽間，沒留意有免責條款（分別貼於衣帽間內及印於有關收據 |
| Exemptiion Clause – by Notice – no reasonable steps to bring to the notice of other party |
Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council [1940] 1 KB 532 |
租沙灘椅，椅榻下，租方辯稱收據有免責條款不負責任何因租椅導致任何意外，官判該辯說無效 |
| Exemption Clause – by Notice – notice should be given at or before the contract is formed |
Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd [1949] 1 K.B. 532 |
於酒店 reception 簽好租房協議，但酒店不負責客人遺失行李之免責條款沒有在 reception 說明，而是暗藏房間內 |
| Exemption Clause – super detail clause in writing |
Bewise Motors Co Ltd v Hoi Kong Container Services Ltd FACV 4/1997 |
運輸集裝箱的車被偷，集裝箱方稱有詳細免責條款，官判有關 breach of contract 已被該等詳細免責條款函蓋 |
| Exemption Clause – notice on receipt at car park not binding |
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd. [1971] 2 Q.B. 163 |
拍車埸入埸機收據列印之免責條文無效力，因未能在合約形成之前給予客戶足夠事前通知 |
| Extra Step Principle |
Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 W.L.R. 461 |
Extra Step – Red Ink/ Red Hand Rule |
| Extra Step Principle |
Interfoto Pictures Library Ltd. v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd. [1988] 1 All E.R. 348 |
遲遠幻燈片罰則重需 extra step 提醒客戶 |
| Translation |
Chan Woon-hung t/a Ocean Plastic Factory v Associated Bankers Insurance Co Ltd. [1993] 2 HKLR 127. |
上訴人持有合約一段時間足令其可找翻譯，故不能因其不懂英文為藉口 |
| Interpretation/ Construction – Contra proferentem rule |
Andrews Bros Ltd v Singer & Co Ltd. 1 [1934] All E.R. 479 |
賣車方免責條文明確文字指明針對新車，故舊車 (sale of used car)不受該免責條文所覆蓋 |
| Interpretation/ Construction – Exemption Clause covering breach of warranty only |
Baldry v Marshall [1925] 1 KB 260 |
賣車方合約列明不負任何breach of guarantee 或warranty ，但 the car is suitable for touring purpose 被判為 condition，故breach of condition不受該免責條文保障，即賣車方需負責任 |
| Interpretation/ Construction – go to plain natural meaning |
Nanyang Credit Card Co Ltd v Ying Wei (Hop Hick) Cargo Service [1993] 1 HKC 56 |
免責條款雖文法不對但詞義明顯，即 SET UP 電腦方不用負責任何損毀，並明示應為南洋信用卡自購保險包損毀 |
| Interpretation/ Construction – Rule of Law approach (Doctrine of Fundamental Breach) |
Karsales (Harrow)Ltd. v Wallis [1956] 1 W.L.R. 936 at 940 |
甲租購車，簽了租購合約才發現車多處改裝甚至不能動，官判免責條款指明不負責車子性能或可否行駛無效，此等 fundamental breach 不能受 exclusion clause 保障免責 |
| Interpretation/ Construction – Rule of Construction approach |
Photo Production Ltd. v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] A.C. 827 |
火燒舖因不屬工作期間疏忽導致故受免責條文保障不用賠償 |
| Misinterpretation |
Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co Ltd. [1951] 1 K.B. 805 |
洗衣舖誤導顧客讓其簽的洗衣單據所示免責條款是指該舖不負責損毀珠子或亮片，但其實該免責條款包括整件衣服任何損毀，官判洗衣舖作了虛假陳述 |
| CECO (Cap 71) – S8 – Liability arising in contract |
Always Win Ltd v Autofit Ltd. [1995] 2 HKC 48 |
車子維修，維修埸遭盜竊，維修方以維修完成還車之單據有免責條款，而當客人在該單據簽收即確認其接受，官判無效，因有關條款 not brought to customer notice in time |
| CECO – Section 8 UCTA – Section 3 |
St Albans City & District Council v International Computers [1995] FSR 686 |
交稅資料庫軟件有誤，有關限制條款 (Limitation Clause) 被判不合理 (not reasonable) 故無效 |