Last Bus v Dawsongroup, [2023] EWCA Civ 1297

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

BrianTech Ltd, a medium-sized automotive parts supplier, entered into a high-value agreement to provide specialized bus engine components to Wheelstone Coaches, a major passenger transport operator. The contract contained an exclusion clause purporting to release BrianTech Ltd from liability for defects discovered more than six months after delivery. A few months after signing, Wheelstone Coaches discovered potential safety issues with the supplied components but found itself constrained by the clause in seeking compensation. Discussions revealed BrianTech Ltd had greater bargaining power and required Wheelstone Coaches to accept the terms as presented, with limited room to negotiate. Wheelstone Coaches also had initial indications that affordable insurance for such defects was not necessarily straightforward to obtain.


Which of the following factors is most likely to be decisive under Section 11 and Schedule 2 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 when determining whether the exclusion clause is fair and reasonable?

Introduction

The assessment of exclusion or limitation clauses is a central part of contract law, determining whether terms that restrict liability can be enforced. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA) sets rules for judging such terms in business contracts. This law requires exclusion or limitation clauses to meet fairness tests to be valid. Factors like the balance of bargaining power, availability of insurance, and clear wording in the clause influence this assessment. Understanding these factors aids in creating enforceable contracts and resolving disputes.

The Importance of Last Bus v Dawsongroup and EvoBus

The Last Bus case illustrates how courts currently apply UCTA’s fairness rules. A bus fire caused by a faulty part led to disputes over an exclusion clause in a supply contract. The Court of Appeal’s decision explained how UCTA’s fairness review works in commercial cases.

Section 11 of UCTA: Assessing Fairness

Section 11 of UCTA describes how to determine if an exclusion or limitation clause is fair. The law states the term must be "fair and reasonable" based on facts known when the contract was formed. This involves examining information available or reasonably obtainable at the time of agreement.

Schedule 2 Guidelines: Factors in Assessing Fairness

Schedule 2 of UCTA lists items to review when applying the fairness test. These include the balance of bargaining power, reasons to accept the term, insurance options, and whether the customer understood the term’s limits. In Last Bus, the court balanced these items against the contract’s specific context.

Case Law Background: Applying the Fairness Test

Last Bus follows earlier decisions on exclusion clauses, including George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd [1983] QB 284 and Watford Electronics Ltd v Sanderson CFL Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 317. These cases set out principles about balanced bargaining and risk allocation. Last Bus confirms these principles and demonstrates their application in modern commercial disputes. The court’s focus on precise wording and how clauses operate within contracts stresses the importance of careful drafting.

Practical Effects for Businesses

The Last Bus ruling impacts businesses using exclusion clauses in agreements. It shows the need to comply with UCTA when drafting terms. Companies should ensure exclusion clauses use plain language, distribute risks fairly, and account for differences in bargaining power. Insurance options for excluded risks should also be examined. A well-drafted clause meeting UCTA’s requirements can help manage risk and define responsibilities. Clauses failing UCTA’s fairness test may not be upheld, exposing businesses to unforeseen claims.

Conclusion

The Last Bus v Dawsongroup and EvoBus decision contributes to the legal framework for reviewing exclusion clauses under UCTA. It confirms courts assess fairness based on each contract’s specific circumstances, including facts known at the time of signing. The case reminds businesses to draft terms carefully and comply with UCTA’s rules. The Court of Appeal’s analysis helps businesses and legal professionals anticipate how courts will review exclusion clauses, particularly regarding risk allocation and unequal bargaining power. This judgment builds on principles from George Mitchell and Watford Electronics, preventing unfair use of exclusion clauses against weaker parties. The ruling provides straightforward guidance for drafting and applying exclusion clauses under UCTA.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal