Posted By J Knight Hi Steve, As I recall, The Unfair Contract Terms Act (I think it was called) makes any contract which attempts to limit a statutory duty invalid. HASAWA imposes statutory duties on employers which therefore cannot be limited by contract; disclaimers of the type you quote aren't worth the paper they are written on. Interestingly I was in a car wash yesterday, and it had the usual 'We won't be liable' notice but the notice had the rider 'unless such loss or damage is acused by negligence or failure to observe the terms of contract on the part of X supermarket'; now that's putting it like it is, John

Posted By Jim Walker They not worth the paper. Their presence however serves as a predictor that whoever has used (or suggested) them is less than competent in their job. I find them an excellent cowboy indicator when evaluating contractors.

Posted By Lee Mac Hi Steve, Although they may not hold much legal weight, they do, in my experience, reduce the number of ridiculous claims that may be brought against a company. Basically as we are all aware the employer has a duty of care, there will be those who will attempt to exploit certain situations to their own advantage. As the saying goes- the choice is yours! Lee

Posted By Christopher I would be grateful if you would provide some examples of where disclaimers are acceptable. Many thanks

Posted By Tabs A disclaimer that is usually valid can be found above a coat rack "Coats are left at owner's risk, and we cannot accept liability for any loss or damage" Of course, if your coat is then damaged by fire, or the wall falling over, or similar - you would still have a claim against the owner of the building ... probably. Another that has been accepted is "Motor sport is dangerous and you take part at your own risk" ... but if the clerk of the course then allows two-way traffic, you would still have a claim. Some disclaimers are fair - most are not.

Posted By Ali Not worth the paper nor the ink ! You cannot delegate employers stat duties.

Posted By Steve B Thanks again guys. as stated above the Unfair Contract Terms Bill States: Business liability for negligence (1) Business liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence cannot be excluded or restricted by a contract term or a notice. (2) Business liability for other loss or damage resulting from negligence cannot be excluded or restricted by a contract term or a notice unless the term or notice is fair and reasonable. (3) “Business liability” means liability arising from— (a) anything that was or should have been done for purposes related to a business, or (b) the occupation of premises used for purposes related to the occupier’s business. (4) The reference in subsection (3)(a) to anything done for purposes related to a business includes anything done by an employee of that business within the scope of his employment. 3 Voluntary acceptance of risk The defence that a person voluntarily accepted a risk cannot be used against him just because he agreed to or knew about a contract term, or a notice, appearing to exclude or restrict business liability for negligence in the case in question. In (2) above I suppose it would be for the courts to decide what is fair and reasonable, but I do not believe that the terms within my original post are fair or reasonable. again guys thank you for your input. Regards Steve B