Read the small print
Series: Building ; 266(8180) 12 April 2001, 50(1)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: Discusses the implications of a recent case "Watford Electronics Ltd vs Sanderson CFL Ltd on clauses limiting liability. The CA decided in favour of Sanderson by stating that the contract which contained an exclusion clause where it was not liable for certain indirect loses must stand. Argues that this will make it harder in future to overturn clauses containing liability.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS63811 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 112297-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
Discusses the implications of a recent case "Watford Electronics Ltd vs Sanderson CFL Ltd on clauses limiting liability. The CA decided in favour of Sanderson by stating that the contract which contained an exclusion clause where it was not liable for certain indirect loses must stand. Argues that this will make it harder in future to overturn clauses containing liability.