Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By George B
Need to understand what UK law(s) this would come from...in respect to injury or death.
"Except in respect of injury to or death of any person or any other liability which cannot be limited
or excluded by law (for which no limit applies)"
working on a loss control contract and the vendor is insisting on this in our contract!
Many thanks...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Steve M Granger
sounds like the Unfair Contract Terms Act to me but would like to see more for context and location (country)....
If its here and now... basically they cannot exclude themselves from a 'negligence' issue regarding personal injury, but can exclude almost anything else on the basis that you have a choice....
That's how I see it anyway, but then what do I know, brain the size of a planet... who listens to me...
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
George
I am not aware of any UK law with the quoted rubric. Hence I am with Steve on this one and I suspect it is purely a legal caveat for insurance purposes. It makes little sense to my pea brain. Legal eagles rarely write in plain English, otherwise we would all understand what they are babbling on about.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil Rose
George
I too am finding the context difficult but under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 it is not permissible to exclude liability for death and injury due to negligence by contract or by notice, including a notice (for notice read sign) displayed in accordance with S2(4) of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957
Hope this is of some help
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By George B
Thank you, I did a quick look up and it makes sense. The contract is for PSSR related work in the UK and Ireland by a major insurance company, and I am based in the USA so my learning curve is steep!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Steve M Granger
Reading between the lines it means that you need to take out the insurance protection not them, and may need to factor in to your pricing (imho)
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
George
The preceeding clauses will almost certainly have passed full indemnity across to you for your performance of the contract and its consequences. These would ensure that you paid if somebody is injured as part of your performance of the contract work. This clause recognises that the client remains responsible for his own actions, hence the final subclause.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Steve M Granger
George - knowing you are from 'over there' and coming 'over here' this might help;
The UCTA was developed to prevent the usual 'get out of jail card' for careless landlords who hid behind signs saying 'we do not accept liability for any damage or personal injury however caused' (usually found in car parks etc).
Cutting a long story short the UCTA does allow you to put up a sign reducing liability for property (eg your car) as it is a reasonable contract clause to which caveat emptor applies (let the buyer beware). No one is forcing you to park there so you are entering the contract of your own free will.
However it is not reasonable or acceptable (even if a sign is posted it will not stand the test of law)to exempt from liability of negligence (eg unsafe car parks) resulting in personal harm to people (Americans included).
The UCTA applies to signs, notices, and contracts whether written or implied (I think).
Hope this puts it into perspective.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil Rose
I just love those disclaimer notices - they never fail to bring a smile to my face!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By SteveD-M
For an exclusion clause to be enforceable, certain conditions must be met:
It must be validly incorporated in the contract
Its meaning must be clear, and match the nature of the defence to which it is to be put
It must not be prevented by statute
The contract must remain sufficiently intact that the clause still has some legal force however, it is increasingly difficult to rely on fundamental breach of contract to invalidate an exclusion clause.
'It is well established that indemnity will not lie in respect of loss due to a person’s own negligence or that of his servants unless adequate and clear words are used or unless the indemnity could have no reasonable meaning or application unless so applied…” Walters v. Whessoe Ltd and Shell Refining Co. Ltd
You cannot insure against committing a crime.
Have a nice day...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.