While reading a court case ( Docket P0190110329 ) I came across this;
The judge observed;
As a final note and although it does not affect my decision, I would like to comment upon the argument based on the exclusionary clause in the agreement between the Plaintiffs and Mr. Brown limiting the inspector’s liability to the fee paid for Inspection Services and releasing the inspector from any additional liability. The evidence shows that this agreement was signed after the inspection was completed and when the report was being prepared and given by Mr. Brown. There is no evidence that it was explained to the Plaintiff that the Defendant’s liability was limited by the terms of the contract. The law in this regard is set forth in Law of Contracts in Canada Second Edition G.H.L. Fridman, page 537 in this manner,
“ The applicability of an exclusion or limitation clause can be challenged on the ground that the party seeking its protection did not bring its existence and inclusion in the contract sufficiently to the notice of the other party at the time of, or prior to the making of the contract, with the result that the latter cannot be taken to have assented to the clause. If this is so, then the clause will not be effectuated. Unless, the party has taken reasonable steps to draw the other party’s attention to the contents, or some particular contents, of the proposed contract, the consent of the offeree to the offer will not be taken to extend as far as the term or terms of which the offeree is ignorant.”
The forgoing did not affect the final decision to dismiss the case against the inspector because inspector met the SOP of his Association. I’m assuming that the judge was offering a warning that the limit clause must be brought to the attention of the customer before doing the work.