• Home
• Order now
• Prices
• How we help
• Press
• Law marking
• Contact us
• Resources
• Log in

Melbourne City Council

Clearly, a valid contract has been entered into by Melbourne City Council and Wilinda. Whether the Melbourne city council could rely on the exclusion clause? Was the clause brought to the notice before Wilinda entered into the contract?

Legal Principles/Rules:

1. The exclusion clause contained in the unsigned document must be contractual for it to be legally binding. [Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council] [1940] 1 KB 532,[Causer v Browne]

2. The exclusion clause must be brought to the notice of the promise at the time of entering the contract. [Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd] [1949] 1KB 532 , Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163

3. The “four corners” rule of interpretation states that exclusion clause isn’t applicable to clauses outside the contract. Actions cant be enforced or relied upon. [Sydney City Council v West]

4. Negligence Rule states that the exclusion clause must implicate the terms and conditions and it must be clear and unambiguous.[Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia P/L]

Application:

The case states that Wilinda is the plaintiff and Melbourne City Council is the defendant. According to the given case, the exclusion clause isn’t contractual in nature and excludes the clause from the liability of negligence thus the plaintiff is liable to claim damages from Melbourne City Council.

The contract was entered into by both the contracting parties after which the exclusion clause was subsequently introduced and thus the exclusion clause cant be enforced.A reasonable notice must be given prior the contract has been entered into to be enforced.the terms and conditions wasn’t brought to the reasonable notice of the plaintiff and the receipt was considered to be a mere receipt and not a document that contained terms and conditions.

Melbourne City Council mentioned the following clause:

“The Council does not accept any responsibility for the loss or damage to any vehicle or for loss of or damage to any article or thing in or upon any vehicle or for any injury to any person however such loss, damage, or injury may arise or be caused.”
which excluded it from the liability of negligence but since it didn’t mention anything about theft, the defendant isn’t limited by the liability in the exclusion clause.

The Council can’t rely upon the exclusion clause because the action taken place is outside the object of the exclusion clause. The parking attendant handed over the car to a thief by the issuance of a duplicate ticket by the thief, which is an unauthorized action which lies outside the clause contained in the agreement. Thus, the defendant would be liable to pay the damages for breach of contract.

Conclusion:

Melbourne City Council was liable to pay the damages claimed by Wilinda.

 

Issue:

Whether Tony was a victim of misrepresentation? Were the defendants liable to the plaintiff’s claim for damages?

 

Tweet

Do you need to translate this page?

To translate this page into another language, please select the correct language from the box below.

LOOKING FOR SPECIFIC HELP? We can help you in many law areas!

Did you know that we also provide a service that can help you in other law areas such as:

• GCSE Law Coursework
• A Level Law Coursework
• Law Essay Writing
• BVC/BPTC Writing
• LLM Writing
• LPC letter drafting
• Opinion Writing
• English Legal System
• And much more!

Want to see what our customers say about us? Click here to watch our video.

Want to become a writer for Law Teacher and earn up to £4,000 per month? Click here now!

Secure your law degree, order your family law essay right now!

Order Now. It takes less than 2 minutes.

1. * Name   
2. * Email   
3. * Phone   

1. * Your essay question 
   (please give as much detail as possible)  

Copyright © 2012 All Answers Ltd. All Answers Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with Company Registration No: 4964706 VAT Registration No: 842417633 - Law Teacher - The law essay professionals