EXEMPTION CLAUSES CONTINUED A contracting party seeking to rely on an exemption clause to avoid or limit liability must show that the act complained of comes strictly within the terms of the clause. If it is in any way ambiguous then it will be interpreted against the party attempting to enforce it this is referred to as the contra proferentem rule. Andrews Bros. v Singer [1934] 1 KB 17 There was a contract to purchase new Singer Cars; the contract contained a clause excluding “guarantees or warranties, statutory or otherwise”. One of the cars delivered to the dealer was a used car. The plaintiff sued Singer (defendants); they tried to rely on the exemption clause. Held – The stipulation as to the suitability of the car was a condition, not a guarantee or a warranty, and as such was not covered by the exemption clause. The term “new singer cars” was an express term.

An exclusion of liability in respect of implied terms could not cover liability under the express term. This is particularly so if there is any ambiguity in the term White v John Warwick & Co Ltd [1953] 2 All ER 1021 The plaintiff hired a bicycle from the defendant under a written agreement which included a provision that "nothing in this agreement shall render the owners liable for any personal injuries". The plaintiff was injured when the saddle tilted forward, Held - The Court of Appeal found the defendant liable in negligence. The exclusion clause was sufficient to exclude liability for supplying a defective bicycle, but it was not sufficient to exclude liability for negligence, only liability for implied terms.

However it must be stressed that, although the rule is used to limit the effectiveness of exclusions and limitations, it is not an excuse for so twisting a clause to defeat its obvious meaning. Ailsa Craig Fishing Co Ltd v Malvern Fishing Co Ltd & Securicor Scotland [1983] 1 All ER 101