A student bought an I-Pod Nano for the stated purpose of listening to his taped notes while he took his daily run. The contract he signed with the seller, Tape Talk Ltd., included a clause excusing the seller from liability for the breach of "any term of the contract, whether a breach of condition or warranty whether express, implied, statutory or otherwise." After only 30 days, the I-Pod failed to function at all. It was totally useless for the student's purpose, so he took it back to the seller. The seller refused to take it back and pointed out the exemption clause in the signed contract. On these facts, which of the following could be true?
A) The student is out of luck because the contract with the exemption clause was in writing.
B) The student could get around the exemption clause by arguing insufficient notice.
C) The student could get around the exemption clause by the court's strict interpretation (construction) of the clause.
D) All exemption clauses are illegal, and therefore the student would not be bound by this one.
E) The student could be awarded damages if the exemption clause were found invalid by the court on the grounds that the clause could not be interpreted to mean it would forgive such a fundamental breach.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q49: Which one of the following is false
Q50: The claim of frustration is not available
Q51: In all but one of the following
Q52: Perfect Programs Ltd. hired Gill, who had
Q53: Which of the following is false with
Q55: In a jurisdiction other than B.C., Mr.
Q56: Suppliers of goods and services try to
Q57: If neighbours have a contract agreeing not
Q58: In which of the following situations would
Q59: In B.C., Mr. Buyer sued Mr. Seller
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents