• Any clause that attempts to restrict negligence liability for personal injury or death is void
• Any clause that attempts to restrict negligence liability for loss or damage void unless shown to be `reasonable' (see below).
• Any clause that limits liability for breach of contract, where the contract refers to standard terms or conditions, or one of the parties is a consumer, will be void unless `reasonable'
• Any clause that requires a consumer to indemnify any other party (whether a party to the contract or not) for negligence of breach of contract will be void unless `reasonable'.

• reasonableness will be assessed with reference to what the parties could be expected to know when the contract was formed, and
• the reasonableness criterion will act in favour of a party with relatively weak bargaining power, and
• a clause is more likely to be assessed as reasonable if the party affected could have acted to protect himself, e.g., by insurance,
• the burden of the proof of reasonable lies with the propounder of the clause; it is not for the person affected to prove unreasonableness.

The `reasonableness' test introduced by this statute is also incorporated into disclaimers of liability for Misrepresentation by s2(1) of the MisrepresentationAct1967.

See: ExclusionClause, PhillipsProductsVHyland1987, ProductLiability

ContractLaw LegislativeInstruments

Law glossary index