Commercial Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Commercial Law - Essay Example Also, there was the complaint of distress that was caused on Epcot by Regus Ltd as they had to endure the unpleasantness associated with poor air conditioning. Regus was quick to react, and an exclusion clause that was presented by Regus claimed that Regus was not to be held responsible for any cases of losses that will be incurred while goods are in the custody of the same company. The clause further noted that losses of any kind; data, savings, profits, as well as, claims raised by third parties will not be incurred by Regus. As such, the clause mandated Epcot to ensure that goods are insured so that these losses will not be incurred by Regus. Under the UCTA Act of 1997, these claims were noted as void as Epcot argued for the exclusion clause noted by Regus to be struck out on the rationale that it did not pass the reasonableness test that is provided for in the Unfair Contract Terms (UCLA) Act.   The judge was guided by the fact that it was in Regus’ docket as per the con tractual agreement to provide proper air conditioning for Epcot. With this in mind, Regus was not in order to deprive Epcot of the payments that were to be extended for losses that were incurred. As such, it was not reasonable for Regus to claim for Epcot’s deprival to be remedied for all the losses. Regus was thus expected to be reasonable and cater partly for failure to be in a position to ensure protection from losses and distress that Epcot incurred. This clause was considered broad as it would mean that even stern breaches.... , these claims were noted as void as Epcot argued for the exclusion clause noted by Regus to be struck out on the rationale that it did not pass the reasonableness test that is provided for in the Unfair Contract Terms (UCLA) Act. The judge was guided by the fact that it was in Regus’ docket as per the contractual agreement to provide proper air conditioning for Epcot. With this in mind, Regus was not in order to deprive Epcot of the payments that were to be extended for losses that were incurred. As such, it was not reasonable for Regus to claim for Epcot’s deprival to be remedied for all the losses. Regus was thus expected to be reasonable and cater partly for failure to be in a position to ensure protection from losses and distress that Epcot incurred. The failure by Regus to provide proper air conditioning was questioned and Epcot was favored as the services as provided by the terms and conditions of the form contract were not met. An analysis of the exclusion claus e used by Regus would thus exclude the same company from any malicious or fraudulent cases that will result from their inability to provide satisfactory services. This clause was considered broad as it would mean that even stern breaches of the contract will not be remedied. The unreasonableness of the clause as provided for by the judge was challenged by the court of appeal. The court also challenged Epcot’s claim that Regus’ failure to provide proper air conditioning led to future loses that the company will incur. The appellate court noted that it would only be reasonable for Epcot to demand remedy for a decrease in the prices of the standards they expected from Regus. Liability remedy was earlier on not provided for by the exclusion clause according to the judge. However, this was not the