Business Law

Introduction

Presented in this case are Annie Wanda, from now on referred to as the plaintiff, and NTUC supermarket's worker, from now on referred to as the defendant. The defendant has spilled milk on the floor of the supermarket, and has failed to put a warning sign in order to prevent consequences arising from people stepping on wet floor and falling. The plaintiff has suffered from severe injuries as a result of this negligent action of the defendant. In order to claim damages from the defendant, the plaintiff must prove four points. Firstly, there is a duty of care from the defendant’s side. Secondly, there is a breach of that duty of care. Thirdly, the breach caused harm to the defendant, in fact. And lastly, the harm is not too remote.

This report seeks to provide the plaintiff with sufficient legal reasons and possible courses of legal actions that she could take.

B. Body

In this report, I will apply the Exclusion Clause or exemption clause. According to David Kelly, & Ann Holmes, & Ruth Hayward (2005), “an exemption clause is a term in a contract which tries to exempt, or limit, the liability of a party in breach of the agreement.” However, if the customer can prove that his or her damage is directly affected by that party’s negligence or mistake, he or she can sue that party. There are some examples of exclusion clause: “No refund if the price tag is remove”, “The store are not liable for any stolen bicycle if the visitors did not lock the vehicle” or “Considered sold if broken”. So, why this kind of clause is useful for a business? There are four reasons a business should consider to take advantage of this tool. Firstly, it will limit or at least reduce the intense of any sue from customer. Secondly, the company will know how to manage risk or foresee the risks. Thirdly, it will also help the company pay less for insurance if there is any sue. Lastly, it will reduce the number of claimants.

First, there is a need for the plaintiff to...