The K-Zone: Harbutt's Plasticine v Wayne Tank (1970)
This case (Harbutt's Plasiticine v Wayne Tank [1970] 1 QB 447)
founded the principle (now not widely used) that an
ExclusionClause was invalidated by a significant
breach of contract. Harbutt's contracted Wayne Tank to build
a storage facility for hot liquids; the pipework was
constructed of inappropriate material which melted on the first
use, set fire to the plant, and burned it to the ground.
Wayne Tank tried to rely on a clause limiting its liability,
and which the plaintiffs had acknowledged on signing
the contract. Denning LJ ruled that the defendants had
breach the contract so significantly that it was effectively
void; therefore the exclusion clause -- like the rest of
the contract -- did not exist. Therefore the defendents
owed the usual common law duty of care to the defendents,
which they negligently discharged.
Denning's opposition to exclusion clauses was well-known,
and this case was widely cited in support of unfair
exclusions. However, it was overruled by the House
of Lords in ,
and the law remains that if two organizations of equal
bargainging power enter into a contract, they must remain
bound by its terms even if one of them breaches the
contract (see: PhotoProductionsVSecuricorLtd1980).
CaseLaw
Law glossary index
©1994-2006 Kevin Boone, all rights reserved