Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Legality of Disclaimers
On Saturday night upon leaving a nightclub I went to collect my jacket from the cloakroom. The girl returned and said that there was no jacket on the hanger and that it must have been given away to a wrong person (even though I still had the ticket). I noticed that they had a disclaimer saying that they can not be held responsible for jackets left with them. I was just curious as I had paid them for a service so does this disclaimer hold any weight?
I was told to phone in over the next couple of days to see if someone came back with it if taken accidently. The club manager said that if not returned they can refund me up to the value of �50. To replace that jacket will cost me about �80-�90. Again do I have to accept that? I would be a bit p'd off if that had been something like a �300 designer jacket and only got a maximum of �50.
Any help on this area of law would be appreciated.
Thanks
I was told to phone in over the next couple of days to see if someone came back with it if taken accidently. The club manager said that if not returned they can refund me up to the value of �50. To replace that jacket will cost me about �80-�90. Again do I have to accept that? I would be a bit p'd off if that had been something like a �300 designer jacket and only got a maximum of �50.
Any help on this area of law would be appreciated.
Thanks
Answers
1 to 5 of 5
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by BreenM. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Write to the club (using recorded delivery and keeping a copy of the letter for yourself) advising them that
(i) you believe that a court would rule that they they cannot limit liability as this contravenes the Unfair Contracts Act 1977
(ii) if the club fails to pay the full price of replacing the jacket, you intend to use the Small Claims Procedure, at the County Court, to pursue them for the balance and for your legal costs.
http://www.netlawman.co.uk/acts/unfair-contrac t-terms-act-1977.php
Chris
(PS: It might be useful to mention that you'll be making the local media aware of your dissatisfaction and informing them about your proposed legal action)
(i) you believe that a court would rule that they they cannot limit liability as this contravenes the Unfair Contracts Act 1977
(ii) if the club fails to pay the full price of replacing the jacket, you intend to use the Small Claims Procedure, at the County Court, to pursue them for the balance and for your legal costs.
http://www.netlawman.co.uk/acts/unfair-contrac t-terms-act-1977.php
Chris
(PS: It might be useful to mention that you'll be making the local media aware of your dissatisfaction and informing them about your proposed legal action)
Thanks Chris for that advice. (I will read the link tonight when not in work).
I see what CushtyFred is saying but I am still not sure whether that sign is valid. Surely if you pay for that service then the company must have some kind of insurance to cover when things go wrong. What I found interesting is that if they have no responsibility then why privately do they tell me that they have an up to �50 compensation. Why not just tell me hard luck and offer me nothing. It's almost as if there are rules but she didn't want to say. Apolgies if this is already explained in the link.
I see what CushtyFred is saying but I am still not sure whether that sign is valid. Surely if you pay for that service then the company must have some kind of insurance to cover when things go wrong. What I found interesting is that if they have no responsibility then why privately do they tell me that they have an up to �50 compensation. Why not just tell me hard luck and offer me nothing. It's almost as if there are rules but she didn't want to say. Apolgies if this is already explained in the link.
Thanks for the reply.
That link goes to some complicated legal jargon, so I'll try to explain the basic principles:
In order to be able to sue someone, you normally need to establish 'negligence'. If the club had caught fire (and not because of any negligent actions by anyone connected with the club) and your jacket had been destroyed in the blaze, you'd have no right to claim any compensation from the club, because they had not been negligent. However, it appears that the most likely cause of your jacket going astray is, at least in part, the result of negligence by their staff. (i.e. even if someone deliberately tried to steal your jacket from the cloakroom, the club staff were negligent because they failed to properly check the tickets).
What the Unfair Contract Terms Act does it to invalidate any attempt by the club to say "We're not liable for what happens to your property, even if our staff are negligent". The Act isn't a piece of legislation which directly leads to court actions. Instead, it provides legal guidance to courts which are already considering cases. So, if you took the matter to the County Court, the club might say "We're not paying out. The customer should have read the sign". However, the Court would then consider whether the sign had any validity in law. Because of the Unfair Contract Terms Act, it would almost certainly rule that the sign had no effect because it sought to state that the club should not be held liable for customers' losses incurred through the negligence of its staff.
Chris
That link goes to some complicated legal jargon, so I'll try to explain the basic principles:
In order to be able to sue someone, you normally need to establish 'negligence'. If the club had caught fire (and not because of any negligent actions by anyone connected with the club) and your jacket had been destroyed in the blaze, you'd have no right to claim any compensation from the club, because they had not been negligent. However, it appears that the most likely cause of your jacket going astray is, at least in part, the result of negligence by their staff. (i.e. even if someone deliberately tried to steal your jacket from the cloakroom, the club staff were negligent because they failed to properly check the tickets).
What the Unfair Contract Terms Act does it to invalidate any attempt by the club to say "We're not liable for what happens to your property, even if our staff are negligent". The Act isn't a piece of legislation which directly leads to court actions. Instead, it provides legal guidance to courts which are already considering cases. So, if you took the matter to the County Court, the club might say "We're not paying out. The customer should have read the sign". However, the Court would then consider whether the sign had any validity in law. Because of the Unfair Contract Terms Act, it would almost certainly rule that the sign had no effect because it sought to state that the club should not be held liable for customers' losses incurred through the negligence of its staff.
Chris
1 to 5 of 5
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.