Law

It is a mooting

Therefore, the University cannot exclude itself for any liability as a result of negligence, based on the provisions of term (c) of the tenancy agreement since it does not satisfy the requirements of liability, specifically, Schedule 2(a), which requires that for reasonableness to be satisfied, both parties ought to have bargaining positions relative to each other with regards to the availability of any alternative means via which the requirements of the customer could have been met. This is supported by Phillips v Hyland [1987] 1 WLR 659. Ms. Edwards did not have bargaining power relative to that of the University of East England. With regards to other alternatives, she did not have any other since the University of East England offer was the cheapest, which Ms. Edwards could not find anywhere and as such it seems she was under some sort of pressure. According to Schedule (d), for term c to be deemed reasonable, it must be satisfied that at the time of the contract, compliance to that term would have been practical. This is supported by Smith v Eric S Bush [1990] UKHL 1 2. … If it pleases you My Lady, I will start with my first submission My Lady, the appeal before you is for the determination of whether a judge in a trial court erred in law in his decision in favor of the respondent, Ms. Edwards. The Appellant, the University of East England argue that, the trial judge erred in law in his determination that a term in a tenancy contract between the University of East England and Ms. Edwards , specifically term (c), which states, c) In the agreement, the University dissolves itself from taking any responsibility in case of damage to a student’s property within its premises, was unreasonable. According to the Appellant, the University of East England, that term, (c), of the tenancy contract satisfies the thresholds for reasonableness on the basis of Section 2(1-2) of the UCTA 1977. We contest this notion and affirms that, the trial did not make in error in law on the basis of Section 2(1-2), which states, In the case of other loss or damage, a person cannot so exclude or restrict his liability for negligence except in so far as the term or notice satisfies the requirement of reasonableness. We argue that, the University cannot exclude itself from liability arising from any loss or damage caused by negligence based on term (c) of the tenancy contract since it does not satisfy the requirements of reasonableness. My Lady, Schedule 2(a) of the UCTA 1977, requires that, for a term in a contract to be deemed reasonable, both parties ought to have bargaining positions relative to each other with regards to the availability of any alternative means via which the requirements of the customer could have been met. This was held in Phillips v Hyland [1987] 1 WLR 659, where, Lord Justice Slade, Mr. Justice Neill and Sir John Megaw, held in

Back To Top