Startseite Exemption and exegesis: Judicial interpretation of exemption clauses in England, Australia, and India
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Exemption and exegesis: Judicial interpretation of exemption clauses in England, Australia, and India

  • Tony Blackshield EMAIL logo und Rosemary Huisman
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 23. Januar 2016

Abstract

A feature of the modern consumer economy is the so-called “standard form contract,” printed in advance to establish the terms on which a corporate supplier deals with its customers. Typically these terms include an “exemption clause,” seeking to limit the supplier’s liability for loss or damage, and often to exclude legal liability altogether. Sometimes such clauses are given effect according to their apparent intention, but in other cases judges may endeavor to avoid that result – either by denying the clause any legal effect whatsoever, or by reading it so as not to apply to the precise kind of liability that has in fact arisen. We illustrate these varied responses by reference to judicial decisions in England, Australia, and India. The analysis suggests different expectations within these different judicial discourse communities: in England, from 1980 onwards, the renewed ideological emphasis on freedom of contract led judges to retreat from the creative solutions of earlier decades, returning to an emphasis on the actual words of such clauses; in Australia, in contrast, judges declined to take part in such a retreat; in India, a prevailing insistence on the need to interpret contracts strictly according to their literal terms has failed to prevent occasional attempts at ingenious interpretive solutions.

References

Acharyya, Bijay K. 1914. Codification in British India. Calcutta: S. K. Banerji.Suche in Google Scholar

Blackshield, Tony & George Williams. 2010. Australian constitutional law and theory: Commentary and materials, 5th edn. Sydney: Federation Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Gregory, Charles N. 1900. Bentham and the codifiers. Harvard Law Review 13. 344–357.10.2307/1323338Suche in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. 1978. Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.Suche in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. 1984. Language as code and language as behavior: A systemic-functional interpretation of the nature and ontogenesis of dialogue. In Robin P. Fawcett, Michael A. K. Halliday, Sydney M. Lamb & Adam Makkai (eds.), Language as social semiotic (The Semiotics of Culture and Language 1), 3–35. London: Frances Pinter.Suche in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 1999. Construing experience through meaning. London: Continuum.Suche in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar, 3rd edn. London: Arnold.Suche in Google Scholar

Hasan, Ruqaiya. 2009. Semantic variation: Meaning in society and in sociolinguistics. London: Equinox.Suche in Google Scholar

Holland, Kenneth M. (ed.). 1991. Judicial activism in comparative perspective. London: Macmillan.10.1007/978-1-349-11774-1Suche in Google Scholar

Martin, James R. 2010. Semantic variation – modelling realization, instantiation, and individuation in social semiosis. In Monika Bednarek & James R. Martin (eds.), New discourse on language: Functional perspectives on multimodality, identity, and affiliation, 1–34. London & New York: Continuum.Suche in Google Scholar

Pierce, Jason L. 2006. Inside the Mason Court revolution: The High Court of Australia transformed. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Ramanathan, Usha. 2002. Tort law in India. Annual Survey of Indian Law 2001. 615–628.Suche in Google Scholar

Sharma, Gyan S. 1962. Horizons of Indian legal philosophy. Jaipur Law Journal 2. 180–194.Suche in Google Scholar

Stone, Julius. 1964. Legal system and lawyers’ reasonings. Sydney: Maitland.Suche in Google Scholar

Weiss, Gunther A. 2000. The enchantment of codification in the common law world. Yale Journal of International Law 25. 435–532.Suche in Google Scholar

Table of Cases

AUSTRALIA

Commercial Radio Coffs Harbour v Fuller (1986) 161 CLR 47

Darlington Futures v Delco Australia Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 500

eBay International AG v Creative Festival Entertainment (2006) 170 FCR 450

McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951) 84 CLR 377

Selected Seeds Pty Ltd v QBEMM Pty Ltd (2010) 242 CLR 336

Sydney City Council v West (1965) 114 CLR 481

Thomas National Transport v May & Baker (Australia) (1966) 115 CLR 353

Tozer Kemsley & Millbourn (A’Asia) v Collier’s Interstate Transport Service (1956) 94 CLR 384

INDIA

Agarwalla Air Transport v Md Nasratulla, AIR 1959 Calcutta 755

Bharathi Knitting Co v DHL Worldwide Express, AIR 1996 SC 2508

China Cotton Exporters v Beharilal Ramcharan Cotton Mills, AIR 1961 SC 1295

General Assurance Society v Chandumull Jain, AIR 1966 SC 1644

Indian Airlines Corporation v Smt Madhuri Chaudhuri, AIR 1965 Calcutta 252

Madhuri Chaudhuri (Smt) v Indian Airlines Corporation, AIR 1962 Calcutta 544

Mukul Dutta Gupta (Sm) v Indian Airlines Corporation, AIR 1962 Calcutta 311

New India Civil Erectors (Private) Ltd v Oil & Natural Gas Corporation, AIR 1997 SC 980

Steel Authority of India v J.C. Budharaja, AIR 1999 SC 32

Usha International v United India Insurance, AIR 2005 Delhi 424

UNITED KINGDOM

Alderslade v Hendon Laundry [1945] KB 189

Barr v Gibson (1838) 3 Meeson & Welsby 390; 150 ER 1196

Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council [1940] 1 KB 532

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562

Ernest Beck & Co v K Szymanowski & Co [1924] AC 43

Hollier v Rambler Motors [1972] 2 QB 71

Houghton v Trafalgar Insurance Co [1954] 1 QB 247

Karsales v Wallis [1956] 2 All ER 866

Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel [1949] 1 KB 532

Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877) 2 CPD 416

Photo Production Ltd v Securitor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827

Suisse Atlantique Société d’Armement Maritime SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale [1967] 1 AC 361

White v John Warrick & Co [1953] 1 WLR 1285

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MacPherson v Buick Motor Co, 217 NY 382, 111 NE 1050 (1916)

Published Online: 2016-1-23
Published in Print: 2016-3-1

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Introduction: Hidden meanings in legal discourse
  3. Comparing the incomparable and legal discourse
  4. Two assumptions in legal discourse: To answer for self and to tell the truth
  5. Le sens caché: Refoulement et impensé dans le discours de la loi sémiotique des significations cachées du discours juridique
  6. Multiple historical and social layers of interpretation of marital rape in England
  7. Revisiting judgment translation in Hong Kong
  8. Exemption and exegesis: Judicial interpretation of exemption clauses in England, Australia, and India
  9. Identifying the meanings hidden in legal texts: The three conditions of relevance theory and their sufficiency
  10. The consequences and effects of language transformations in legal discourse
  11. Exploring identities in police interrogations
  12. Rights, responsibilities, and resistance: Legal discourse and intervention legislation in the Northern Territory in Australia
  13. An exploration of the semantic domain of legal language
  14. The hidden meanings in the case law of the European Court for Human Rights
  15. Crimes of the sign: Politics and performatives in the Treason Trials of 1794
  16. Showing what “marriage” is: Law’s civilizing sign
  17. A sociosemiotic approach to the legal dispute over the crime of whoring with an underage girl in China
  18. Uncovering hidden meanings in legal discourse on the elderly: A semioethical perspective
  19. Deontic meaning making in legislative discourse
  20. Hidden meanings of the words “religion” and “religious” in legal discourse
  21. Hidden cultures in law: Metaphor and translation in legal discourse
  22. Negotiating language status in multilingual jurisdictions: Rhetoric and reality
  23. Burying attitudes in words: Linguistic realization of the shift of judges’ court conciliation style
Heruntergeladen am 30.9.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/sem-2016-0006/html?lang=de
Button zum nach oben scrollen