Moreover there exists a notice that provides for the exclusion of the establishment from liability. The law is clear that:” Where a contract term or notice purports to exclude or restrict liability for negligence a person’s agreement to or awareness of it is not of itself to be taken as indicating his voluntary acceptance of any risk” (Section 2, subsection 3, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977). This means that the posted notice of exclusion from liability will not insulate Remi Shorro, proprietor of Remi’s Place from civil actions for liability due to injury and loss of property suffered. However it must be established that Remi Shorro is negligent in the sense that his negligence facilitated the injury of Jenny. Negligence as per the law is treated as:
It is therefore required that Remi Shorro committed any of the given acts to merit being negligent and thus the provision not permitting exclusion from liability be considered applicable. Although Remi Shorro claims that he does not possess any liability for the injuries and loss of Jenny it is not correct to say that this is due to the fact that a notice for the same exists. Rather the contention that holds most water is the one that forwards the idea that Jenny is burdened to prove that Remi Shorro was negligent since if this is established then the prohibition on notices of exclusion from liability will be in effect and the said notice in this case will have no merit. Hence it would be advised to Remi Shorro that his initial response to the claim of Jenny is for the latter to establish the former’s negligence as outlined by the law.
It must first be cited that the claimant, Tania Oleg, asserted that “she was a specialist and knew all about the Fender Stratocaster guitars”, despite the fact that Peter, the assistant in charge of the sale of items in Remi’ Place already informed her that the guitar which Tania wanted to purchase:” had just arrived in the shop that