Before finding the cogency of the freedom clause. the first issue to be raised is when the contract was formed between Frank and Packer Line. A contract is an understanding entered into by two or more parties. maintaining within the footings of the contractual understanding. For the contract to be enforceable. there must hold an offer made. which indicates willingness by the offerer to be…… . ( mention a instance that illustrate this ) . an unqualified credence ( commendation ) . …… . . In Baltic Shipping Co V Dillon. Dillon had made an offer by booking a sail through Jayes Travel Service. where the offer was formalised by the payment of the sedimentation and when Jayes Travel Service issued the ‘statement of account’ . Reasonable clip was unfastened for credence by CTC Cruises on behalf of Baltic Shipping Co. Credence was completed when Dillon had paid the balance payment and the tickets were issued. The similarity between Baltic Shipping Co V Dillon and Frank’s instance was that it involves the payment and issue of ticket. By establishing on the facts of Dillon’s instance. the contract between the two parties was formed when the balance payment was paid by Frank’s receptionist in exchange for the ticket issued by Packer Line. Validity of Exemption Clause
The following issue is whether the freedom clause is valid.
Exemption clauses seek to restrict one’s liability under the contract by clearly adverting that they will non be responsible for certain liabilities. The clause could be valid every bit long as it is decently included in the contract. When Frank’s receptionist paid the payment in exchange for the ticket. the envelope incorporating the ticket was written “PLEASE READ CONDITIONS OF THE ENCLOSED CONTRACT” . The ticket itself contained the freedom clause. It could be said that the freedom clause could hold been valid as notice of the clause was given at the clip of the contract. However. the issue here is whether sensible stairss had been taken to pull to the attending of Frank of the being of the freedom clause. Reasonable Stairss
In Causer V Browne. Causer amendss the apparels which Browne sent for dry cleansing. When Browne sued. Causer relied on the freedom clause on the reception. The reception was issued when Browne made the payment. Causer lost his instance as the justice held that it was non obvious that the reception had footings of contract on them. It must demo that sensible stairss are brought to the attending of the other party. When the reception was issued. Causer should hold reference to Browne sing the freedom clause on the reception. Back to the scenario. Frank is non present when the credence is completed. The travel agent did non take sensible stairss to inform Frank of the freedom clause. and Frank did non read the ticket or open the envelope until he boarded the sail. The exclusion clause should be deemed invalid. Since the freedom clause is non valid. Frank’s claim for hurt is non limited to $ 500. Now the inquiry is whether Frank could seek to claim other amendss other than the hurt suffered due to the expiration of the contract.
Damages of the ticket monetary value
It is a inquiry of whether Frank could claim back the money paid for the ticket. In Baltic Shipping Company V Dillon. it was held that there was no entire failure of consideration as Dillon ; the complainant in the instance. had enjoyed eight out of the 14 twenty-four hours sail until the ship sank. Therefore. Dillon was merely entitled to the damages of the purchase monetary value matching to the period of the trip she had missed. Back to the scenario. nevertheless. does non supply adequate information sing the continuance of the sail and the clip the storm grounded the ship. Therefore. the refund of the ticket monetary value should be possible. but the sum will be dependent on the period of the sail when the storm grounded the ship. Damage for Disappointment
Next. the issue is whether Frank could seek to claim amendss for letdown. In order for amendss to be recoverable. losingss must be moderately contemplated as a consequence of the breach. In the instance of Falco V James McEwan & A ; Co Pty Ltd. amendss for letdown was non awarded for the failure on the defendant portion to transport out its contractual duties to provide and put in an oil warmer in the complainant house. The harm is considered to be excessively distant. However. if the aim of the contract is to supply amusement and enjoyment. so amendss can be awarded for the letdown. hurt. disquieted and defeat caused by the breach.
But it is besides mentioned that under the common jurisprudence. amendss could non be awarded for hurt or letdown originating from a breach of contract unless it arises from a breach of an express or implied term where enjoyment. pleasance and personal protection were promised. It is an express term that the sail will take Frank to his finish. which is Sydney. It is besides an implied term. which goes without stating. that the sail will be an gratifying experience. Obviously. Packer line had breached those footings. It is obvious that Frank will be disappointed by neglecting to make his finish and besides the loss of enjoyment caused by the incompletion of the sail. Therefore. Frank can lodge a claim for amendss for letdown against Packer Line. Decision
Frank non merely could claim amendss for his hurt in surplus of $ 500 due to the invalidness of the freedom clause. but besides seek to claim for damages of the menu monetary value and amendss for letdown.