Abstract
A feature of the modern consumer economy is the so-called “standard form contract,” printed in advance to establish the terms on which a corporate supplier deals with its customers. Typically these terms include an “exemption clause,” seeking to limit the supplier’s liability for loss or damage, and often to exclude legal liability altogether. Sometimes such clauses are given effect according to their apparent intention, but in other cases judges may endeavor to avoid that result – either by denying the clause any legal effect whatsoever, or by reading it so as not to apply to the precise kind of liability that has in fact arisen. We illustrate these varied responses by reference to judicial decisions in England, Australia, and India. The analysis suggests different expectations within these different judicial discourse communities: in England, from 1980 onwards, the renewed ideological emphasis on freedom of contract led judges to retreat from the creative solutions of earlier decades, returning to an emphasis on the actual words of such clauses; in Australia, in contrast, judges declined to take part in such a retreat; in India, a prevailing insistence on the need to interpret contracts strictly according to their literal terms has failed to prevent occasional attempts at ingenious interpretive solutions.
References
Acharyya, Bijay K. 1914. Codification in British India. Calcutta: S. K. Banerji.Search in Google Scholar
Blackshield, Tony & George Williams. 2010. Australian constitutional law and theory: Commentary and materials, 5th edn. Sydney: Federation Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gregory, Charles N. 1900. Bentham and the codifiers. Harvard Law Review 13. 344–357.10.2307/1323338Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1978. Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1984. Language as code and language as behavior: A systemic-functional interpretation of the nature and ontogenesis of dialogue. In Robin P. Fawcett, Michael A. K. Halliday, Sydney M. Lamb & Adam Makkai (eds.), Language as social semiotic (The Semiotics of Culture and Language 1), 3–35. London: Frances Pinter.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 1999. Construing experience through meaning. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar, 3rd edn. London: Arnold.Search in Google Scholar
Hasan, Ruqaiya. 2009. Semantic variation: Meaning in society and in sociolinguistics. London: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar
Holland, Kenneth M. (ed.). 1991. Judicial activism in comparative perspective. London: Macmillan.10.1007/978-1-349-11774-1Search in Google Scholar
Martin, James R. 2010. Semantic variation – modelling realization, instantiation, and individuation in social semiosis. In Monika Bednarek & James R. Martin (eds.), New discourse on language: Functional perspectives on multimodality, identity, and affiliation, 1–34. London & New York: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Pierce, Jason L. 2006. Inside the Mason Court revolution: The High Court of Australia transformed. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Ramanathan, Usha. 2002. Tort law in India. Annual Survey of Indian Law 2001. 615–628.Search in Google Scholar
Sharma, Gyan S. 1962. Horizons of Indian legal philosophy. Jaipur Law Journal 2. 180–194.Search in Google Scholar
Stone, Julius. 1964. Legal system and lawyers’ reasonings. Sydney: Maitland.Search in Google Scholar
Weiss, Gunther A. 2000. The enchantment of codification in the common law world. Yale Journal of International Law 25. 435–532.Search in Google Scholar
Table of Cases
AUSTRALIA
Commercial Radio Coffs Harbour v Fuller (1986) 161 CLR 47
Darlington Futures v Delco Australia Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 500
eBay International AG v Creative Festival Entertainment (2006) 170 FCR 450
McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951) 84 CLR 377
Selected Seeds Pty Ltd v QBEMM Pty Ltd (2010) 242 CLR 336
Sydney City Council v West (1965) 114 CLR 481
Thomas National Transport v May & Baker (Australia) (1966) 115 CLR 353
Tozer Kemsley & Millbourn (A’Asia) v Collier’s Interstate Transport Service (1956) 94 CLR 384
INDIA
Agarwalla Air Transport v Md Nasratulla, AIR 1959 Calcutta 755
Bharathi Knitting Co v DHL Worldwide Express, AIR 1996 SC 2508
China Cotton Exporters v Beharilal Ramcharan Cotton Mills, AIR 1961 SC 1295
General Assurance Society v Chandumull Jain, AIR 1966 SC 1644
Indian Airlines Corporation v Smt Madhuri Chaudhuri, AIR 1965 Calcutta 252
Madhuri Chaudhuri (Smt) v Indian Airlines Corporation, AIR 1962 Calcutta 544
Mukul Dutta Gupta (Sm) v Indian Airlines Corporation, AIR 1962 Calcutta 311
New India Civil Erectors (Private) Ltd v Oil & Natural Gas Corporation, AIR 1997 SC 980
Steel Authority of India v J.C. Budharaja, AIR 1999 SC 32
Usha International v United India Insurance, AIR 2005 Delhi 424
UNITED KINGDOM
Alderslade v Hendon Laundry [1945] KB 189
Barr v Gibson (1838) 3 Meeson & Welsby 390; 150 ER 1196
Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council [1940] 1 KB 532
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
Ernest Beck & Co v K Szymanowski & Co [1924] AC 43
Hollier v Rambler Motors [1972] 2 QB 71
Houghton v Trafalgar Insurance Co [1954] 1 QB 247
Karsales v Wallis [1956] 2 All ER 866
Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel [1949] 1 KB 532
Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877) 2 CPD 416
Photo Production Ltd v Securitor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827
Suisse Atlantique Société d’Armement Maritime SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale [1967] 1 AC 361
White v John Warrick & Co [1953] 1 WLR 1285
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MacPherson v Buick Motor Co, 217 NY 382, 111 NE 1050 (1916)
©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton
