Far better, I think, to stick to
a tested standard clause and add only those terms that are necessary to vary unwanted default rules or to reflect the specific intent of the parties.
Not exact matches
Following the Supreme Court's latest decision, the long - cited
test of whether a liquidated damages
clause is a genuine pre-estimate of loss designed to compensate the innocent party rather than deter the defaulting party from committing the breach (as established by early 20th century authority of Dunlop Tyre) is no longer conclusive although the Supreme Court accepted that it might still be of use in considering simple damages
clauses in
standard contracts.
I therefore need to
test other examples of the product against the key
clauses of the relevant product safety
standards, and also establish whether the products were designed and
tested against these
standards in the first place — and that the appropriate certification and documentation for these
tests exists.
Contract — Exclusion
clause — Defendant contracting to overhaul engines of plaintiff's tugboat — Engine damaged after seizing up during
testing — Whether defendant in breach of contract — Whether plaintiff's or defendant's
standard terms applied — Whether defendant entitled to limit liability to price of quotation.