33:I[196793,["/_next/static/chunks/1xyh1u_ku6jw-.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2_6olli-sutu3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1qp4g--o6-1vf.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0psy-n5us57a4.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3mz725-y91ph6.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2x_dbpl3b_l2r.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0nojijad0occ8.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/19ua1o9n5v3ho.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0zkcxwtbsqliz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3yfg2hrj9oxbd.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/35s1d7gs3nyqk.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/38w1x0vrld4-w.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3jpl-42mbad5n.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3kzt2piec6aoa.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2lsi6eli88uwt.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2os7nxouq91eq.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3ml3vooxhiupb.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/04zr-wqafvwoa.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/36r9y5g_s4k64.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/40lyu17d590zu.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2g-t2n9ahs3tn.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2mv9l1xl_aa4j.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/44w2c3xxfw4wd.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/16jtsbm2g52s0.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/05mo4k9k-ry1n.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0v4byuex1x38h.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2eanemqjnv2vr.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2f3ohq_f1uov2.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0llqhg6-bxn_b.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2dx-vzwyw9a3g.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0qeo40bqomvxa.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1ku-vdy4ggo41.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1coblm1-go81_.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/27ftpb6yvr6lz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0k-y_4mcfub-p.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1o4x0l2qh0ta-.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3it1o0ex-l5qz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2gqripb6ybmw9.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2l63yczi1z2qz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/075i0tnxt4not.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1eyu-5752jh17.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1of_-ow2iz1cj.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3ybwgs28on6c8.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/13gj59kzq50t_.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1986062z5zb0v.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0uitbylhcd4am.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0wv8cpdr6cvhr.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/06b61oz__qen3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0a4x2f2g83l7b.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1lsxkfxy262n-.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3q5gc8lbwr4b4.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0dspbdeiizrn3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2yss1g0cimuwe.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0e7v08pdxbxe2.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/36nndwkz7iik3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0zg1om_k0m5zv.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2fnth9-t6i7kd.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/24srd-xd1m5z8.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0a57o9qvnv-nb.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/41hx021qkamew.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1ksyn9m68446d.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788"],"Gingerbread"] 35:I[647935,["/_next/static/chunks/1xyh1u_ku6jw-.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2_6olli-sutu3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1qp4g--o6-1vf.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0psy-n5us57a4.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3mz725-y91ph6.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2x_dbpl3b_l2r.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0nojijad0occ8.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/19ua1o9n5v3ho.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0zkcxwtbsqliz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3yfg2hrj9oxbd.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/35s1d7gs3nyqk.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/38w1x0vrld4-w.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3jpl-42mbad5n.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3kzt2piec6aoa.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2lsi6eli88uwt.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2os7nxouq91eq.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3ml3vooxhiupb.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/04zr-wqafvwoa.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/36r9y5g_s4k64.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/40lyu17d590zu.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2g-t2n9ahs3tn.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2mv9l1xl_aa4j.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/44w2c3xxfw4wd.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/16jtsbm2g52s0.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/05mo4k9k-ry1n.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0v4byuex1x38h.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2eanemqjnv2vr.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2f3ohq_f1uov2.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0llqhg6-bxn_b.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2dx-vzwyw9a3g.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0qeo40bqomvxa.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1ku-vdy4ggo41.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1coblm1-go81_.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/27ftpb6yvr6lz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0k-y_4mcfub-p.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1o4x0l2qh0ta-.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3it1o0ex-l5qz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2gqripb6ybmw9.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2l63yczi1z2qz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/075i0tnxt4not.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1eyu-5752jh17.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1of_-ow2iz1cj.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3ybwgs28on6c8.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/13gj59kzq50t_.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1986062z5zb0v.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0uitbylhcd4am.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0wv8cpdr6cvhr.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/06b61oz__qen3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0a4x2f2g83l7b.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1lsxkfxy262n-.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3q5gc8lbwr4b4.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0dspbdeiizrn3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2yss1g0cimuwe.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0e7v08pdxbxe2.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/36nndwkz7iik3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0zg1om_k0m5zv.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2fnth9-t6i7kd.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/24srd-xd1m5z8.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0a57o9qvnv-nb.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/41hx021qkamew.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1ksyn9m68446d.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788"],"RecordResourceResume"] 36:I[830476,["/_next/static/chunks/1xyh1u_ku6jw-.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2_6olli-sutu3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1qp4g--o6-1vf.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0psy-n5us57a4.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3mz725-y91ph6.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2x_dbpl3b_l2r.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0nojijad0occ8.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/19ua1o9n5v3ho.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0zkcxwtbsqliz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3yfg2hrj9oxbd.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/35s1d7gs3nyqk.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/38w1x0vrld4-w.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3jpl-42mbad5n.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3kzt2piec6aoa.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2lsi6eli88uwt.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2os7nxouq91eq.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3ml3vooxhiupb.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/04zr-wqafvwoa.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/36r9y5g_s4k64.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/40lyu17d590zu.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2g-t2n9ahs3tn.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2mv9l1xl_aa4j.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/44w2c3xxfw4wd.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/16jtsbm2g52s0.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/05mo4k9k-ry1n.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0v4byuex1x38h.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2eanemqjnv2vr.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2f3ohq_f1uov2.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0llqhg6-bxn_b.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2dx-vzwyw9a3g.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0qeo40bqomvxa.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1ku-vdy4ggo41.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1coblm1-go81_.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/27ftpb6yvr6lz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0k-y_4mcfub-p.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1o4x0l2qh0ta-.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3it1o0ex-l5qz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2gqripb6ybmw9.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2l63yczi1z2qz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/075i0tnxt4not.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1eyu-5752jh17.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1of_-ow2iz1cj.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3ybwgs28on6c8.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/13gj59kzq50t_.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1986062z5zb0v.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0uitbylhcd4am.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0wv8cpdr6cvhr.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/06b61oz__qen3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0a4x2f2g83l7b.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1lsxkfxy262n-.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3q5gc8lbwr4b4.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0dspbdeiizrn3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2yss1g0cimuwe.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0e7v08pdxbxe2.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/36nndwkz7iik3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0zg1om_k0m5zv.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2fnth9-t6i7kd.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/24srd-xd1m5z8.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0a57o9qvnv-nb.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/41hx021qkamew.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1ksyn9m68446d.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788"],"FlashcardAccessBranch"] 37:I[315438,["/_next/static/chunks/1xyh1u_ku6jw-.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2_6olli-sutu3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1qp4g--o6-1vf.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0psy-n5us57a4.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3mz725-y91ph6.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2x_dbpl3b_l2r.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0nojijad0occ8.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/19ua1o9n5v3ho.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0zkcxwtbsqliz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3yfg2hrj9oxbd.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/35s1d7gs3nyqk.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/38w1x0vrld4-w.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3jpl-42mbad5n.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3kzt2piec6aoa.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2lsi6eli88uwt.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2os7nxouq91eq.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3ml3vooxhiupb.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/04zr-wqafvwoa.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/36r9y5g_s4k64.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/40lyu17d590zu.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2g-t2n9ahs3tn.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2mv9l1xl_aa4j.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/44w2c3xxfw4wd.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/16jtsbm2g52s0.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/05mo4k9k-ry1n.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0v4byuex1x38h.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2eanemqjnv2vr.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2f3ohq_f1uov2.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0llqhg6-bxn_b.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2dx-vzwyw9a3g.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0qeo40bqomvxa.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1ku-vdy4ggo41.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1coblm1-go81_.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/27ftpb6yvr6lz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0k-y_4mcfub-p.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1o4x0l2qh0ta-.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3it1o0ex-l5qz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2gqripb6ybmw9.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2l63yczi1z2qz.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/075i0tnxt4not.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1eyu-5752jh17.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1of_-ow2iz1cj.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3ybwgs28on6c8.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/13gj59kzq50t_.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1986062z5zb0v.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0uitbylhcd4am.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0wv8cpdr6cvhr.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/06b61oz__qen3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0a4x2f2g83l7b.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1lsxkfxy262n-.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/3q5gc8lbwr4b4.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0dspbdeiizrn3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2yss1g0cimuwe.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0e7v08pdxbxe2.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/36nndwkz7iik3.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0zg1om_k0m5zv.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/2fnth9-t6i7kd.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/24srd-xd1m5z8.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/0a57o9qvnv-nb.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/41hx021qkamew.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788","/_next/static/chunks/1ksyn9m68446d.js?dpl=nogit-1791882788"],"TopicFlashcardRunner"] 24:[["$","$L33",null,{"feature":"flashcards"}],"$L34",["$","$L35",null,{"href":"/a-level/law/aqa/contract-terms-exclusion-clauses/flashcards","label":"Contract terms: exclusion clauses","subjectCode":"a_level_law__aqa","surface":"flashcards"}],["$","$L36",null,{"runner":["$","div",null,{"className":"min-h-0 flex-1 overflow-hidden bg-background","children":["$","$L37",null,{"decks":[{"id":"ad265e21-b8bc-4f1b-bce5-0fb507edc06f","title":"Contract terms: exclusion clauses Flashcards","topicId":"ad55ef2c-5f34-5301-b38a-fba13cbc43fa","topicSlug":"contract-terms-exclusion-clauses","cards":[{"id":"7e9d8623-42fb-41ec-8039-96cd6c26b5b6","cardType":"basic","points":3,"front":"What three gates must an exclusion or limitation clause normally pass to be effective?","back":"

Incorporation
Construction
Statutory control

","mcqOptions":[{"text":"

Incorporation
Construction
Statutory control

","correct":true,"explanation":"An exclusion or limitation clause must first be incorporated into the contract, then interpreted through construction, and finally comply with statutory controls such as the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977."},{"text":"

Offer
Acceptance
Consideration

","correct":false,"explanation":"These are stages of contractual performance rather than the tests for an exclusion clause. The correct gates are incorporation, construction and statutory control, which determine whether the term entered the contract, what it means and whether legislation permits it."},{"text":"

Construction
Incorporation
Remedies

","correct":false,"explanation":"Interpretation, incorporation and remedies are related contract issues, but remedies are not a normal gate for exclusion clauses. The required sequence is incorporation, construction and statutory control."},{"text":"

Intention
Termination
Damages

","correct":false,"explanation":"These concepts concern whether a contract exists and how it may end, not the effectiveness of an exclusion term. The three relevant gates are incorporation, construction and statutory control."}]},{"id":"d22745f1-0bd5-4c55-966c-0a5472595b46","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"An [ ] tries to remove liability; a [ ] accepts liability but caps it.","back":"An exclusion clause tries to remove liability; a limitation clause accepts liability but caps it.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"An exclusion clause tries to remove liability; a limitation clause accepts liability but caps it.","correct":true,"explanation":"An exclusion clause seeks to remove liability altogether, whereas a limitation clause accepts that liability exists but restricts the amount or extent recoverable."},{"text":"An limitation clause tries to remove liability; a exclusion clause accepts liability but caps it.","correct":false,"explanation":"The two terms have been reversed: an exclusion clause removes liability, while a limitation clause accepts liability but restricts its amount or extent. The first term therefore does not fit the first definition."},{"text":"An indemnity clause tries to remove liability; a liquidated damages clause accepts liability but caps it.","correct":false,"explanation":"An indemnity clause generally provides protection against loss rather than defining whether liability is removed or capped. The correct distinction is exclusion clause for removal and limitation clause for capping liability."},{"text":"An condition tries to remove liability; a warranty accepts liability but caps it.","correct":false,"explanation":"A condition concerns a major contractual obligation, while a warranty is a lesser term; neither describes the removal-versus-capping distinction. The correct terms are exclusion clause and limitation clause."}]},{"id":"e197afbe-12c2-4441-94fd-98f471e5118e","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"If an exclusion clause is not incorporated, what is the legal consequence?","back":"It cannot be relied on.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"It cannot be relied on.","correct":true,"explanation":"If the clause was never incorporated into the contract, it is not a contractual term and the party cannot use it to exclude or limit liability."},{"text":"It voids the whole contract.","correct":false,"explanation":"Non-incorporation does not automatically make the entire contract void. It means only that the exclusion clause is not part of the agreement and therefore cannot be relied on."},{"text":"It is interpreted against the other party.","correct":false,"explanation":"A clause that was not incorporated is not normally interpreted narrowly; it is simply absent from the contract. The legal consequence is that it cannot be relied on."},{"text":"It becomes a separate promise.","correct":false,"explanation":"The court does not usually rewrite an unincorporated term as a damages clause. Since it never became contractual, the exclusion clause cannot be relied on."}]},{"id":"5fd455a7-e129-4bbd-9ca1-204865992731","cardType":"basic","points":3,"front":"What are the three main ways an exclusion clause can be incorporated?","back":"

Signature
Reasonable notice
Previous course of dealings

","mcqOptions":[{"text":"

Signature
Reasonable notice
Previous course of dealings

","correct":true,"explanation":"An exclusion clause can enter the contract through the party’s signature, through reasonable notice given before or at formation, or through a consistent previous course of dealings."},{"text":"

Offer
Acceptance
Consideration

","correct":false,"explanation":"Offer, acceptance and consideration are requirements for contract formation, not the three recognised methods of incorporating an exclusion clause. The correct methods are signature, reasonable notice and previous dealings."},{"text":"

Delivery
Payment
Oral agreement

","correct":false,"explanation":"Delivery may provide an opportunity for notice, but it is not an independent incorporation method. The recognised routes are signature, reasonable notice and a previous course of dealings."},{"text":"

Knowledge
Negotiation
Industry practice

","correct":false,"explanation":"A party’s knowledge and the wording of a term may affect incorporation, but they are not the three main methods. The established methods are signature, reasonable notice and previous dealings."}]},{"id":"98524373-eb3f-48fd-8538-4275a341d882","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"Under [ ], signing a contractual document usually binds a party even if they [ ].","back":"Under L’Estrange v Graucob [1934], signing a contractual document usually binds a party even if they did not read it.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Under L’Estrange v Graucob [1934], signing a contractual document usually binds a party even if they did not read it.","correct":true,"explanation":"L’Estrange v Graucob established that signing a contractual document normally binds the signer to its terms, even where the signer did not read them before signing."},{"text":"Under L’Estrange v Graucob [1934], signing a contractual document usually binds a party even if they disagreed with its purpose.","correct":false,"explanation":"The case does not create a general exception merely because a party misunderstood the commercial purpose. A signature normally binds even without reading, subject to exceptions such as misrepresentation."},{"text":"Under L’Estrange v Graucob [1934], signing a contractual document usually binds a party even if they signed it after termination.","correct":false,"explanation":"Signing generally binds a party despite failing to read the document, but it does not mean a signature is automatically effective after the contract has ended. The relevant phrase is ‘did not read it’."},{"text":"Under L’Estrange v Graucob [1934], signing a contractual document usually binds a party even if they had no legal advice.","correct":false,"explanation":"The principle concerns the effect of signing without reading, not whether the signer lacked legal advice. Failure to obtain advice alone does not replace the established phrase ‘did not read it’."}]},{"id":"c5797df6-59a3-4905-b3f5-ecc560b86449","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What limit on incorporation by signature comes from Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co [1951]?","back":"A party may not be bound if the clause’s effect was misrepresented.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"A party may not be bound if the clause’s effect was misrepresented.","correct":true,"explanation":"Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co shows that a signature will not protect a party where the exclusion clause’s effect was misrepresented, because the signer was induced by a false description of the term."},{"text":"A party may not be bound if the clause’s effect was printed in small type.","correct":false,"explanation":"A clause’s small print is not, by itself, the Curtis exception to the signature rule. The relevant limitation is where the clause’s effect was misrepresented before signature."},{"text":"A party may not be bound if the clause’s effect was not separately negotiated.","correct":false,"explanation":"Not negotiating a term does not normally prevent incorporation by signature. The recognised exception from Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co arises when the clause’s effect was misrepresented."},{"text":"A party may not be bound if the clause’s effect was not highlighted.","correct":false,"explanation":"A failure to highlight a clause may raise a notice issue for an unsigned document, but it is not the specific signature exception in Curtis. The effect must have been misrepresented."}]},{"id":"a238fda8-0144-48e9-ad05-39d757ee5c8c","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"When may a signed or received document fail to incorporate exclusion terms under Chapelton v Barry UDC [1940]?","back":"If it appears to be a mere receipt, not contractual.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"If it appears to be a mere receipt, not contractual.","correct":true,"explanation":"Chapelton v Barry UDC shows that a document which appears to be only a receipt may not be understood as containing contractual terms, so receiving it does not incorporate the exclusion clause."},{"text":"If it is printed in ordinary type, not contractual.","correct":false,"explanation":"A document does not fail merely because it is printed. The issue in Chapelton is whether it appears to be a mere receipt rather than a document containing contractual terms."},{"text":"If it is issued without a signature, not contractual.","correct":false,"explanation":"The absence of a signature is not the specific point in Chapelton, because incorporation may occur through reasonable notice. The document failed because it appeared to be a mere receipt."},{"text":"If it is less than one page, not contractual.","correct":false,"explanation":"A document’s length does not determine whether it contains contractual terms. The relevant question is whether it appears to be a mere receipt, as opposed to a contractual document."}]},{"id":"542fa5e8-ff4a-47f8-a3e6-00f95b437bec","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"Under [ ], reasonable notice must be given [ ].","back":"Under Parker v South Eastern Railway [1877], reasonable notice must be given before or at contract formation.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Under Parker v South Eastern Railway [1877], reasonable notice must be given before or at contract formation.","correct":true,"explanation":"Parker v South Eastern Railway established that reasonable notice of an exclusion term must be given before or at contract formation; notice provided afterwards is normally too late."},{"text":"Under Parker v South Eastern Railway [1877], reasonable notice must be given after contract formation.","correct":false,"explanation":"Notice given after formation is generally too late to incorporate a new exclusion term. Parker requires reasonable notice before or at contract formation, when the parties become bound."},{"text":"Under Parker v South Eastern Railway [1877], reasonable notice must be given during contractual performance.","correct":false,"explanation":"Notice during performance does not normally incorporate a term into an already formed contract. The required timing is before or at contract formation."},{"text":"Under Parker v South Eastern Railway [1877], reasonable notice must be given when liability is disputed.","correct":false,"explanation":"Notice at the time of a later dispute cannot ordinarily add an exclusion clause retrospectively. Parker requires reasonable notice before or at the moment the contract is formed."}]},{"id":"624843dc-e524-4aa1-8b95-b5360d8340bf","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What timing rule is shown by Olley v Marlborough Court [1949] and Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971]?","back":"Terms introduced after contract formation are too late.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Terms introduced after contract formation are too late.","correct":true,"explanation":"Olley and Thornton establish that contractual terms must be incorporated before or at formation. A term introduced afterwards cannot normally become part of the already concluded agreement."},{"text":"Terms introduced before contract formation are too late.","correct":false,"explanation":"The timing is reversed here. Terms introduced before formation can potentially be incorporated, whereas Olley and Thornton show that terms introduced after formation are too late."},{"text":"Terms introduced during negotiations are automatically too late.","correct":false,"explanation":"Negotiations occur before formation, so terms raised then are not automatically late. The relevant rule is that a term introduced after contract formation cannot normally be incorporated."},{"text":"Terms introduced after performance begins are always incorporated.","correct":false,"explanation":"Beginning performance does not make a later exclusion clause automatically binding. The decisive issue is whether the term was introduced before or at contract formation, not simply when performance started."}]},{"id":"f6dd944c-7a84-4890-990e-5a08572eb964","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"The more [ ] the clause, the more notice is required: [ ].","back":"The more unusual or onerous the clause, the more notice is required: Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programmes [1989].","mcqOptions":[{"text":"The more unusual or onerous the clause, the more notice is required: Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programmes [1989].","correct":true,"explanation":"Interfoto requires especially clear and prominent notice for unusual or onerous terms. The more burdensome the exclusion clause, the greater the steps needed to bring it to the other party’s attention."},{"text":"The more ordinary or minor the clause, the more notice is required: Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programmes [1989].","correct":false,"explanation":"The principle targets unusual or onerous clauses, not ordinary or minor ones. Interfoto increases the notice requirement because a particularly burdensome term is less likely to be expected."},{"text":"The more clearly worded the clause, the more notice is required: Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971].","correct":false,"explanation":"Clear wording concerns interpretation, while this rule concerns incorporation by notice. Interfoto specifically links increased notice requirements to unusual or onerous clauses."},{"text":"The more frequently used the clause, the more notice is required: Olley v Marlborough Court [1949].","correct":false,"explanation":"Repeated use in previous dealings is a separate incorporation issue. The Interfoto rule depends on the clause’s unusual or onerous nature, requiring stronger notice for burdensome terms."}]},{"id":"ae688ceb-d6c0-46e2-8878-42e3cd5105bb","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"What must previous dealings show to incorporate an exclusion clause?","back":"Dealings must be regular and consistent on the same terms.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Dealings must be regular and consistent on the same terms.","correct":true,"explanation":"Previous dealings incorporate a term only when the parties have contracted regularly and consistently on the same terms, making it reasonable to infer that the term was understood and accepted."},{"text":"Dealings must be occasional and consistent on different terms.","correct":false,"explanation":"Occasional dealings are generally insufficient, and different terms do not establish a consistent course of contracting. The required pattern is regular and consistent dealings on the same terms."},{"text":"Dealings must be regular and varied on similar terms.","correct":false,"explanation":"Variation weakens any inference that a particular exclusion clause was accepted. The cases require regular and consistent dealings on the same terms, rather than merely similar or varied wording."},{"text":"Dealings must be single and written on the same terms.","correct":false,"explanation":"A single transaction cannot normally establish a course of previous dealings, even if it is written. Incorporation generally requires a regular and consistent history using the same terms."}]},{"id":"613dd04f-1d7e-4ac3-9ff7-80b08b17aa0c","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"Why did previous dealings fail in Hollier and McCutcheon?","back":"

Hollier: too few transactions over five years.
McCutcheon: inconsistent paperwork.

","mcqOptions":[{"text":"

Hollier: too few transactions over five years.
McCutcheon: inconsistent paperwork.

","correct":true,"explanation":"Hollier involved only a small number of transactions across five years, while McCutcheon involved inconsistent documentation. Neither case showed sufficiently regular and consistent dealings on identical terms."},{"text":"

Hollier: inconsistent paperwork.
McCutcheon: too few transactions over five years.

","correct":false,"explanation":"The case reasons have been switched. Hollier failed because the dealings were too infrequent, whereas McCutcheon failed because the paperwork and contractual practice were inconsistent."},{"text":"

Hollier: no written contract existed.
McCutcheon: the clause was too onerous.

","correct":false,"explanation":"Neither case is principally explained by those points. Hollier concerned insufficient frequency of dealings, and McCutcheon concerned inconsistency in the documents and terms used."},{"text":"

Hollier: the exclusion clause was unsigned.
McCutcheon: notice was given too late.

","correct":false,"explanation":"Signature and timing were not the central reasons previous dealings failed in these cases. The relevant defects were Hollier’s infrequency and McCutcheon’s inconsistent paperwork."}]},{"id":"322b8bb5-350f-41bb-9ed5-81ca732fe28a","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"At the construction stage, what does the court ask about the clause?","back":"Whether the wording covers the breach or loss.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Whether the wording covers the breach or loss.","correct":true,"explanation":"At the construction stage, the court interprets the clause to decide whether its wording extends to the particular breach, loss or liability that has occurred."},{"text":"Whether the wording was signed by both parties.","correct":false,"explanation":"Signature concerns incorporation, not construction. Once the term is potentially part of the contract, construction asks whether its wording actually covers the breach or loss in question."},{"text":"Whether the wording was displayed before negotiation.","correct":false,"explanation":"Display and timing concern whether the clause was incorporated into the contract. Construction instead examines the clause’s meaning and whether it covers the relevant breach or loss."},{"text":"Whether the wording creates a valid contract.","correct":false,"explanation":"Contract formation is a separate issue from construction. At construction stage, the court assumes the clause is relevant and interprets whether it covers the specific breach or loss."}]},{"id":"779fa0e6-cc07-41df-bcb1-74e50bbf23a5","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What is the effect of the contra proferentem rule?","back":"Ambiguity is interpreted against the party relying on the clause.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Ambiguity is interpreted against the party relying on the clause.","correct":true,"explanation":"Contra proferentem resolves genuine ambiguity against the party seeking to rely on the exclusion clause, because that party drafted or introduced the wording and seeks its protection."},{"text":"Ambiguity is interpreted in favour of the party relying on the clause.","correct":false,"explanation":"This reverses the rule’s protective effect. Where exclusion wording is genuinely ambiguous, contra proferentem favours the party not relying on the clause."},{"text":"Ambiguity is interpreted against the party who suffered the loss.","correct":false,"explanation":"The rule is not based simply on who suffered the loss. It operates against the party relying on the exclusion clause when the wording remains genuinely ambiguous."},{"text":"Ambiguity is interpreted by ignoring the exclusion clause.","correct":false,"explanation":"Ambiguity does not automatically make the clause disappear. The court interprets the uncertainty against the party relying on it, applying the narrow interpretation supported by the wording."}]},{"id":"2d9817a8-b2e1-4613-ba73-144618161909","cardType":"basic","points":3,"front":"What is the Canada Steamship guidance for clauses excluding negligence?","back":"

Express negligence: may cover negligence.
No express wording: ask if words are wide enough.
Alternative liability: may apply clause to that instead.

","mcqOptions":[{"text":"

Express negligence: may cover negligence.
No express wording: ask if words are wide enough.
Alternative liability: may apply clause to that instead.

","correct":true,"explanation":"Canada Steamship provides a staged approach: express reference to negligence may suffice; otherwise the words must be wide enough, and an alternative liability may explain the clause instead."},{"text":"

Express negligence: can never cover negligence.
No express wording: clause is automatically invalid.
Alternative liability: cannot affect interpretation.

","correct":false,"explanation":"Each proposition reverses the guidance. Express wording may cover negligence, lack of express wording requires further interpretation, and alternative liability can provide another application for the clause."},{"text":"

Express negligence: always excludes all negligence.
No express wording: ask whether the clause was signed.
Alternative liability: applies only to strict liability.

","correct":false,"explanation":"Express reference does not automatically cover every negligence claim, and signature concerns incorporation rather than this guidance. Alternative liability is a possible contractual basis, not limited to strict liability."},{"text":"

Express negligence: is irrelevant to validity.
No express wording: interpret words in favour of the claimant.
Alternative liability: makes the clause void.

","correct":false,"explanation":"The guidance gives express wording significant weight and asks whether broader words cover negligence when it is absent. Alternative liability may preserve another application rather than voiding the clause."}]},{"id":"3b295a83-96a8-4cdd-b39e-c61d0f72bf63","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"After [ ], fundamental breach is not automatic invalidity - it is a matter of [ ].","back":"After Photo Production v Securicor [1980], fundamental breach is not automatic invalidity - it is a matter of construction.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"After Photo Production v Securicor [1980], fundamental breach is not automatic invalidity - it is a matter of construction.","correct":true,"explanation":"Photo Production rejected automatic invalidity for fundamental breach. The court instead construes the exclusion clause to determine whether its wording covers the breach and resulting liability."},{"text":"After Photo Production v Securicor [1980], fundamental breach is not automatic invalidity - it is a matter of incorporation.","correct":false,"explanation":"Incorporation asks whether the clause became part of the contract, usually through notice or signature. Photo Production established that the effect of fundamental breach depends on construction."},{"text":"After Karsales v Wallis [1956], fundamental breach is not automatic invalidity - it is a matter of construction.","correct":false,"explanation":"Karsales represents the older strict approach associated with fundamental breach. Photo Production later confirmed that fundamental breach is not automatically invalidating and instead raises a construction issue."},{"text":"After Photo Production v Securicor [1980], fundamental breach is not automatic invalidity - it is a matter of reasonableness.","correct":false,"explanation":"Reasonableness may be relevant under statutory controls, but the common-law principle from Photo Production is construction. The court interprets whether the clause covers the fundamental breach."}]},{"id":"8d9c3ec3-040e-4a76-a4c0-9b2d503df669","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"How does s2 UCTA 1977 control negligence exclusion clauses?","back":"

Death or personal injury: cannot be excluded.
Other loss: exclusion must be reasonable.

","mcqOptions":[{"text":"

Death or personal injury: cannot be excluded.
Other loss: exclusion must be reasonable.

","correct":true,"explanation":"Section 2(1) prevents a party excluding or restricting liability for death or personal injury caused by negligence. Under section 2(2), exclusion of other loss is subject to reasonableness."},{"text":"

Death or personal injury: exclusion must be reasonable.
Other loss: cannot be excluded.

","correct":false,"explanation":"This reverses the statutory treatment. Section 2(1) makes exclusions of death or personal injury from negligence ineffective, while exclusions of other loss are valid only if reasonable."},{"text":"

Death or personal injury: exclusion must be reasonable.
Other loss: exclusion is automatically valid.

","correct":false,"explanation":"The reasonableness requirement applies to other loss, not death or personal injury. Liability for death or personal injury caused by negligence cannot be excluded at all."},{"text":"

Death or personal injury: exclusion is automatically valid.
Other loss: exclusion must be reasonable.

","correct":false,"explanation":"Negligence liability for death or personal injury cannot be excluded, regardless of reasonableness. Only exclusion of liability for other loss may survive if the clause is reasonable."}]},{"id":"2425bcae-5fc1-46bc-a5df-12aedaee6500","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"When does s3 UCTA 1977 require reasonableness for breach clauses?","back":"When one party deals on the other’s written standard terms.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"When one party deals on the other’s written standard terms.","correct":true,"explanation":"Section 3 applies when one contracting party deals on the other’s written standard terms. Exclusions of liability for breach or substantially different performance must then satisfy reasonableness."},{"text":"When one party deals on the other’s oral standard terms.","correct":false,"explanation":"Section 3 applies where a party contracts on the other party’s written standard terms, not merely oral terms. The writing requirement identifies the standard-form dealing covered."},{"text":"When both parties negotiate on individually agreed terms.","correct":false,"explanation":"Individually negotiated terms do not automatically trigger section 3. The provision targets one party dealing on the other’s written standard terms, especially standard-form contracts."},{"text":"When one party deals on the other’s previous standard terms.","correct":false,"explanation":"The key requirement is that the terms are the other party’s written standard terms for the contract in question. Earlier terms from another agreement do not satisfy this rule."}]},{"id":"d4a1c3ab-291c-49f7-ae26-9151570be3f7","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"Under [ ], a term is reasonable if fair and reasonable in the circumstances known or contemplated when the [ ].","back":"Under s11 UCTA 1977, a term is reasonable if fair and reasonable in the circumstances known or contemplated when the contract was made.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Under s11 UCTA 1977, a term is reasonable if fair and reasonable in the circumstances known or contemplated when the contract was made.","correct":true,"explanation":"Section 11 UCTA 1977 uses the circumstances known or contemplated when the contract was made to assess whether a term was fair and reasonable."},{"text":"Under s3 UCTA 1977, a term is reasonable if fair and reasonable in the circumstances known or contemplated when the contract was performed.","correct":false,"explanation":"The statutory test is in section 11, and it assesses circumstances known or contemplated when the contract was made. Focusing on performance gives the wrong statutory point in time."},{"text":"Under s2 UCTA 1977, a term is reasonable if fair and reasonable in the circumstances known or contemplated when the breach occurred.","correct":false,"explanation":"Section 2 controls certain negligence exclusions, but section 11 provides the general reasonableness definition. The relevant circumstances are those known or contemplated when contracting, not at breach."},{"text":"Under s11 CRA 2015, a term is reasonable if fair and reasonable in the circumstances known or contemplated when the dispute was resolved.","correct":false,"explanation":"This confuses the statute and timing. Section 11 UCTA 1977 applies, and reasonableness is judged using circumstances known or contemplated when the contract was made."}]},{"id":"de30f403-c18c-4ae9-ad36-d11bbd183e3b","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What did George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds [1983] show about limitation clauses?","back":"A very low limitation in standard terms may be unreasonable.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"A very low limitation in standard terms may be unreasonable.","correct":true,"explanation":"The case shows that a very low limitation clause in standard terms can be unreasonable under UCTA, especially where the clause leaves the weaker party inadequately protected."},{"text":"A very low limitation in standard terms may be reasonable.","correct":false,"explanation":"George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds demonstrates that an unusually low limitation in standard terms may fail the reasonableness test, particularly where the parties had unequal bargaining positions."},{"text":"A very low limitation in standard terms is always invalid.","correct":false,"explanation":"The case did not establish automatic invalidity for every low limitation. Such a clause is assessed for reasonableness in its circumstances and may be upheld in a different case."},{"text":"A very low limitation in standard terms is always effective.","correct":false,"explanation":"Standard-form wording does not guarantee effectiveness. George Mitchell illustrates that a low financial limit can be struck down when the statutory reasonableness test is not met."}]},{"id":"210dabc2-152a-48d8-ba2b-10a7ef5c15b9","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"Under [ ], a consumer acts mainly outside business purposes; a trader acts for [ ].","back":"Under s2 CRA 2015, a consumer acts mainly outside business purposes; a trader acts for business purposes.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Under s2 CRA 2015, a consumer acts mainly outside business purposes; a trader acts for business purposes.","correct":true,"explanation":"Section 2 CRA 2015 defines a consumer as acting mainly outside business purposes and a trader as acting for purposes relating to that trader’s business."},{"text":"Under s2 UCTA 1977, a consumer acts mainly outside business purposes; a trader acts for private purposes.","correct":false,"explanation":"The relevant definition is in section 2 CRA 2015, and a trader acts for business purposes. Private purposes describe the consumer side, not the trader’s role."},{"text":"Under s9 CRA 2015, a consumer acts mainly outside business purposes; a trader acts for personal purposes.","correct":false,"explanation":"Section 2, not section 9, contains these definitions. A trader’s purposes relate to business, whereas personal or mainly non-business activity describes the consumer."},{"text":"Under s2 CRA 2015, a consumer acts mainly outside business purposes; a trader acts for household purposes.","correct":false,"explanation":"The section identifies the trader by business purposes, not household purposes. Household activity is closer to the consumer context and cannot replace the statutory definition."}]},{"id":"2cb84ae1-2e20-40f2-a97c-9b8b69a174ce","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What does s31 CRA 2015 prevent in consumer goods contracts?","back":"Excluding key goods rights like satisfactory quality, fitness and description.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Excluding key goods rights like satisfactory quality, fitness and description.","correct":true,"explanation":"Section 31 CRA 2015 prevents traders excluding core consumer goods rights, including satisfactory quality, fitness for purpose and correspondence with description."},{"text":"Excluding key goods rights like satisfactory quality, fitness and price.","correct":false,"explanation":"Price is not one of the principal implied goods rights protected in this formulation. Section 31 prevents exclusion of rights such as satisfactory quality, fitness for purpose and description."},{"text":"Excluding key goods rights like durability, delivery and payment.","correct":false,"explanation":"These are not the three key implied rights identified here. Section 31 protects rights including satisfactory quality, fitness for purpose and description."},{"text":"Excluding key goods rights like appearance, availability and discount.","correct":false,"explanation":"Those commercial features do not state the core statutory goods rights. The protected rights include satisfactory quality, fitness for purpose and correspondence with description."}]},{"id":"249fb054-9dbc-4be5-b923-5080685b492b","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What does s57 CRA 2015 prevent in consumer service contracts?","back":"Excluding the duty to perform services with reasonable care and skill.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Excluding the duty to perform services with reasonable care and skill.","correct":true,"explanation":"Section 57 CRA 2015 makes the duty to perform a service with reasonable care and skill non-excludable in a consumer contract."},{"text":"Excluding the duty to perform services with reasonable time and skill.","correct":false,"explanation":"The statutory duty concerns reasonable care and skill, not reasonable time and skill. Section 57 prevents a trader excluding liability for failure to use that care and skill."},{"text":"Excluding the duty to perform services with reasonable price and skill.","correct":false,"explanation":"A reasonable price is a separate possible service term, but it is not the duty protected by this wording. Section 57 focuses on reasonable care and skill."},{"text":"Excluding the duty to perform services with reasonable care and speed.","correct":false,"explanation":"Speed may matter where a time requirement applies, but it is not the statutory phrase here. Section 57 protects the duty to exercise reasonable care and skill."}]},{"id":"12fbb313-c739-4318-98b5-e54da5b3a348","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What does s65 CRA 2015 prevent traders from excluding?","back":"Liability for death or personal injury from negligence.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Liability for death or personal injury from negligence.","correct":true,"explanation":"Section 65 CRA 2015 prevents a trader excluding or restricting liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence in a consumer contract."},{"text":"Liability for death or personal injury from breach.","correct":false,"explanation":"Section 65 concerns death or personal injury caused by negligence, not breach generally. Replacing negligence with breach makes the liability category too broad and changes the statutory rule."},{"text":"Liability for financial loss or inconvenience from negligence.","correct":false,"explanation":"Section 65 does not prohibit every negligence exclusion involving financial loss or inconvenience. Its specific absolute protection covers death or personal injury caused by negligence."},{"text":"Liability for death or property damage from negligence.","correct":false,"explanation":"The protected categories are death or personal injury, not property damage. Section 65 therefore does not use property damage as the second category in this rule."}]}]}],"examCountdown":{"examDate":"2027-05-20","paperLabel":"Paper 1"},"heading":"Contract terms: exclusion clauses","title":"Contract terms: exclusion clauses Flashcards","topbar":{"backHref":"/a-level/law/aqa/flashcards"},"topicSidebar":"$L38"}]}],"topicId":"ad55ef2c-5f34-5301-b38a-fba13cbc43fa","walled":"$L39"}],"$L3a","$L3b"]