Exception clauses and negligence-the influence of contract on bailment and tort
Judgments at first instance have rarely been the subject of comment.' The recent decision of Steyn J in Singer Co (UK) Ltd v Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority,2 however, merits consideration for at least three reasons. First, it focuses upon important issues in the law of bailment, at least on...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
1989
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/4171 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/6129/viewcontent/764427.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | Judgments at first instance have rarely been the subject of comment.' The recent decision of Steyn J in Singer Co (UK) Ltd v Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority,2 however, merits consideration for at least three reasons. First, it focuses upon important issues in the law of bailment, at least one of which has hitherto only been considered at first instance in any event. Secondly, the decision provokes thought on the much broader issue of the effect of exception clauses upon the general duty of care in tort, in particular whether the reasoning in the bailment context could be extended and applied to the wider tortious sphere. This relatively larger issue could not, unfortunately, be discussed in the case itself as there was no finding of negligence as determined by the Court of Appeal in an earlier hearing. Finally, the case throws some light on the application of the reasonableness test in the context of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, although it will be argued that there are persuasive arguments as to why the Act itself ought not to be applicable to exception clauses that occur in the bailment context. |
|---|