On her complaint to the company, regarding her problem, the latter stated that they were not liable, as per clause 4 of their terms and conditions.
In the context of contracts, a number of obligations, relating to the common law have been transformed into statutes. The cardinal instance of such codification is provided by the implied obligations that emerge from the Sale of Goods Act 18931 and the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 19802.
The Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980, serves to regulate exclusion clauses that are unreasonable, in Ireland. The case law is partial to the tenet that a fundamental contractual breach cannot be circumvented, via an exclusion clause3. On the other hand, doctrine supports the stance engendered by the English case law
In Partridge v Crittenden, the court held that an advertisement was equivalent to an invitation to treat5. Nevertheless, this is not sacrosanct and there are exceptions, wherein an advertisement was deemed to be an offer. An instance of this is available in Carbolic Smoke Ball. In this specific case the defendant had argued that the advertisement placed by it in the newspaper was not to be deemed an offer. This was not accepted by the court; on account of the fact that the plaintiff had complied with the stipulations of the defendant’s advertisement6. As such, in our problem, the advertisement placed by the More Movies Ltd constitutes an offer.
A service provider has to exercise reasonable care and skill, in the course of carrying out the contract. This was stipulated in the rulings in Samuels v Davis7 and Allen v Bushnell TV Co and Broadcast News Ltd8.
The issues addressed by the court in cases like the Parker v SE Railway, are; whether the party had been aware of the conditions; had any proper notice been given, in this regard; if so, whether the party knew that the notice contained such writing; If the party was aware that there was writing on the document, then the party receiving the