In Meditek Laboratory Services Ltd. v. Purolator Courier Ltd., a Purolator employee delivered equipment to the wrong address and then falsified documents. In a subsequent lawsuit, Purolator relied on an
Exemption clause that limited its liability "whether or not from negligence or gross negligence". What properly describes the outcome in this case?
A) The exemption clause was severed as being an illegal restraint of trade.
B) The exemption clause was not applied, because it was not evidenced in writing.
C) The exemption clause protected Purolator because of the principle of "freedom to contract".
D) The falsification of documents was done by the employee, not the company itself, so Purolator could not be liable.
E) The falsification of documents was wilful, not negligent, so Purolator was not protected by this clause.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The court found that the exemption clause did not protect Purolator because the employee's actions were wilful misconduct, which is typically not covered by such clauses.