WEDNESDAY, MAY 31, 1989
7
SIGNIFICANT CONSUMER PROTECTION MEASURES CONTAINED IN BILL
OJ
JEREMY
THE CONTROL OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES BILL 1989 IS A MAJOR PIECE CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE HON MATHEWS, TOLD THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TODAY (WEDNESDAY).
"THE BILL, IF ENACTED, WOULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT LAW OF CONTRACT AND OF NEGLIGENCE," HE SAID.
ON THE
SAID THE
IN MOVING THE SECOND READING OF THE BILL, MR MATHEWS
THE SAME TIME MINIMISING BILL SOUGHT "TO ACHIEVE FAIRNESS WHILE AT UNCERTAINTY.'
CONTRACT:
THE BILL WAS CONCERNED WITH THE EXEMPTION CLAUSES OF
LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE 012 AND NOTICES WHICH SOUGHT TO EXCLUDE
THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF TH BREACH OF CONTRACT AND CLOSELY FOLLOWED LAW REFORM COMMISSION'S 1986 REPORT ON THE SUBJECT, HE SAID.
EXEMPTION CLAUSES
WERE OFTEN
то USED LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT OR NEGLIGENCE,
EXCLUDE
OR RESTRICT
LEGITIMATE RIGHT 3 "THEY ARE SOMETIMES USED TO DENY A PERSON'S
BARGAINING AND EXPECTATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE ONE PARTY IN A STRONG
LESS SOPHISTICATED PARTY A CLAUSE POSITION IMPOSES ON A WEAKER OR EXCLUDING LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE.
"THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT THE USE OF CLAUSES LEADS TO ABUSE, PARTICULARLY WHERE THE PARTIES TO DO NOT HAVE EQUAL BARGAINING STRENGTH.
EXEMPTION A CONTRACT
MEASURE Of CAUSED BY
"THE COMMISSION BELIEVED THAT THE BENEFITS OF SOME CONTROL OUTWEIGHED ANY ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGES WHICH MAY BE
CONTRACT," MR MATHEWS THIS LIMITED INTERFERENCE WITH THE FREEDOM OF SAID.
PROVIDED SUMMARISING THE MAIN FEATURES OF THE BILL. HE SAID IT
WERE AUTOMATICALLY INEFFECTIVE THAT FOUR TYPES OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES WHILE CERTAIN OTHER TYPES WERE SUBJECT TO A "REASONABLENESS" TEST.
AUTOMATICALLY INEFFECTIVE THE FOUR TYPES OF CLAUSES THAT WERE WERE "THOSE THAT CANNOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, BE JUSTIFIED.
THEY WERE AS FOLLOWS:
Co
*
FIRST,
AN EXEMPTION CLAUSE RELATING
то DEATH OR PERSONAL
INJURY RESULTING FROM NEGLIGENCE.
"FOR EXAMPLE,
THERE
ARE NOTICES
DISPLAYED
NEGLIGENCE
CHILDREN'S PLAYGROUNDS PURPORTING TO EXCLUDE
INJURIES CAUSED BY THE OPERATOR. MR MATHEWS SAID.
"
"THERE CAN
NO BE
IN SOME LIABILITY FOR
OF THE PLAYGROUND
JUSTIFICATION IN
THAT,
OTHER
PERSON A REMEDY FOR INJURIES
OR ANY
THE BILL WILL, UNFAIRNESS CAUSED BY SUCH
NEGLIGENCE. PERSON'S
SITUATION, FOR DENYING A CAUSED BY ANOTHER THEREFORE, PUT AN END CLAUSES.
THE то
SECONDLY, AN