Darlington Futures Ltd V Delco Australia Pty Ltd (1986)

891 Words2 Pages
In the case of Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd (1986), the High Court ruled that: The interpretation of an exclusion clause is to be determined by construing the clause according to its natural and ordinary meaning, read in light of the contract as a whole, thereby giving due weight to the context in which the clause appeared including the nature and object of the contract… This brings to question whether ‘loss or theft’ covers the severe water damage to Kati’s car. In the case of Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971), Denning MR found that if there is an offer communicated through a sign of notice at the entry of a carpark, this offer is accepted by a customer by the ‘movement of his car’ through the entrance . By this…show more content…
Although the plaintiff’s car was stolen, the court held that the wording of the exclusion clause was satisfactory in covering the negligence that occurred and clearly denied the parking station of any liability towards the plaintiff. If it is found that ‘loss’ equates to damages, it can be assumed that the valet parking service holds no liability for the damage to Kati’s…show more content…
In the case of Tennent v Earl of Glasgow (1864), Lord Westbury defined an ‘act of God’ as ‘an event or occurrence born of natural causes without human intervention in circumstances which no human foresight can provide against and of which human prudence is not bound to recognise the possibility’ . The likelihood of such a defence succeeding is high as a natural disaster is unforeseeable, meaning that Kati would be unable to claim damages for the impact of the water to her

More about Darlington Futures Ltd V Delco Australia Pty Ltd (1986)

Open Document