+
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1986
CONTROL OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES RECOMMENDED
*****
THE WIDESPREAD USE OF TERMS IN CONTRACTS AND NOTICES WHICH EXCLUDE OR LIMIT LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE, PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH SHOULD BE CONTROLLED, THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION SAID IN ITS REPORT ON +CONTROL OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES+, WHICH WAS PUBLISHED TODAY (THURSDAY),
THE COMMISSION RECOMME DED THAT THESE TERMS SHOULD EITHER HAVE NO EFFECT AT ALL OR BE ALLOWED TO TAKE EFFECT ONLY IF THEY WERE REASONABLE.
THE SUGGESTED SCHEME OF CONTROL FOLLOWS THE UNITED KINGDOM'S UNFAIR CONTRACT ACT 1977 AND WOULD APPLY ONLY WHERE A TRANSACTION WAS MADE IN THE COURSE OF A BUSINESS.
CITING AN EXAMPLE THE COMMISSION'S SECRETARY, MR BERTRAND DE SPEVILLE, SAID: +IF TWO NEIGHBOURS AGREE THAT ONE OF THEM SHOULD REPAIR THE TELEVISION SET OF THE OTHER, THERE IS NO REASON WHY THEY SHOULD NOT BE LEFT FREE TO AGREE BETWEEN THEMSELVES WHO SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE IF THE REPAIR FAILS.
+ BUT THE SITUATION IS VERY DIFFERENT WHERE A PERSON BUYS GOODS FROM A SHOP OR SENDS A SUIT TO THE DRY CLEANERS OR PARKS HIS CAR IN A PUBLIC CAR PARK.+
HE SAID IN THESE CASES THE USE OF CLAUSES EXEMPTING THE SUPPLIERS OF THE GOODS OR SERVICES FROM LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE ARISING FROM DEFECTS IN THE GOODS OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A PROPER STANDARD OF SERVICE WAS VERY COMMON.
+THE CONSUMER DOES NOT REALISE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EXEMPTION CLAUSE AND, EVEN IF HE DOES, IS IN NO POSITION TO BARGAIN WITH THE SUPPLIER FOR A CHANGE IN THE CLAUSE.
+THE BALANCE BETWEEN THE SUPPLIER AND CONSUMER NEEDS TO BE REDRESSED AND THE REPORT MAKES A NUMBER OF PROPOSALS ON HOW THAT SHOULD BE DONE,+ HE SAID.
THE REPORT IS THE RESULT OF TWO YEARS' WORK AND WIDE CONSULTATION BY A SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION WHICH INCLUDED BUSINESSMEN AND LAWYERS WORKING UNDER THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF MR ARJAN SAKHRANI.
DEALING WITH THE OBJECTION THAT ANY GENERAL CONTROL OVER EXEMPTION CLAUSES WAS AN UNJUSTIFIABLE INTERFERENCE WITH FREEDOM OF CONTRACT, THE COMMISSION SAID IN THE REPORT THAT, IN OUR VIEW THE OBJECTION IS VALID ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS TRUE FREEDOM OF CONTRACT TO INTERFERE WITH .
/+THE OBJECTION