MOD000009: CONTRACT LAW ASSIGNMENT

Together with the Video, you need to submit to VLE a list of the cases or other supporting materials, for example, academic commentaries, which you are using to support your argument. You should also submit a separate sheet containing any quotations you are using from cases or other sources to support your argument (both should use Arial and 12 point font). You should reference using the OSCOLA referencing system and must include your student ID onto both submissions.

Moots are non-competitive. State at the beginning of the video your name and student ID. Choose a neutral background and ensure a good quality of video and audio. If you fail to upload your moot video and submit your list of cases and quotations you will receive a mark of zero unless an extension to the deadline has been approved in advance of the deadline. Mitigation – Academic Regulations (Twelfth Edition August 2019) 6.112 – 6.122 6.118 Claims for mitigation are submitted by the student, or in exceptional circumstances (e.g. when a student has been hospitalized) by a Director of Studies or Student Adviser on behalf of the student, no later than five working days after the published (or extended) submission deadline for the assessment task or the date on which an examination was held.

Further details: This assignment must be completed individually. For further guidance see Academic Honesty Policy: http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk/academic/files/Academic%20Honesty%20Policy.pd

Referencing: Work must be properly referenced (see Academic Honesty Policy above) and you must use the OSCOLA system. For further guidance on OSCOLA see: http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk/referencing/oscola.html

No work for this assignment needs to be submitted using Turnitin GradeMark.

BARNIER CLEANING LTD v MAY
Tina May, a barrister who has recently been made a QC, takes her business suit and silk lined gown to Barnier Cleaning Ltd to have them cleaned.
On the wall behind the counter was a small sign stating:
“All garments are left entirely at the customer’s own risk. Customers are advised to ensure their own property against loss or damage”
On this occasion, the first line of the sign was obscured by a rack of dinner jackets, which were waiting to be collected. Tina admits to having noticed the sign but was in a rush to get to the Royal Courts of Justice for a hearing, and did not ask the manager to move the dinner jackets so that she could read the sign.
Following payment, Tina received a card which she knew she had to use in order to reclaim her clothes. The card had printed on it an identifying number for each of the garments, the date, the individual price for the cleaning of each item and the total price paid.
When Tina went to collect the clothes she was told by the manager that her business suit and silk lined gown had been damaged beyond repair by the negligence of an employee of Barnier Cleaning. After a heated discussion with Malcolm Barnier, the sole director of Barnier Cleaning Ltd, he informed her that they were not prepared to offer any compensation. Tina May sued Barnier Cleaning Ltd for damages in respect of her business suit and silk-lined gown.

The trial judge found:
1. The exclusion clause was not incorporated into the contract because reasonable steps had not been taken to bring it to the attention of the claimant.
2. In any event, applying the test of reasonableness in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, the clause was invalid.
Moot Point: Barnier Cleaning Ltd now appeals to the Court of Appeal on the following grounds:
1. The exclusion clause was incorporated into the contract.
2. Applying the test of reasonableness in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, the clause was valid.

Answer

Request Answer of this Assignment