Given situation: This case is relating to the concept of exculpatory clauses. Exculpatory clause is a part of an agreement that excludes the contracting party from responsibility, irrespective of who is at fault, in the event of monetary or physical damage. To discuss: The decision for person A.

Question

Want to see the full answer?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 13, Problem 10Q

Summary Introduction

Given situation:

This case is relating to the concept of exculpatory clauses. Exculpatory clause is a part of an agreement that excludes the contracting party from responsibility, irrespective of who is at fault, in the event of monetary or physical damage.

To discuss: The decision for person A.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Adrian rents a bicycle from Barbara. The bicycle rental contract Adrian signed provides that Barbara is not liable for any injury to the renter caused by any defect in the bicycle or the negligence of Barbara. Injured when she is involved in an accident due to Barbara’s improper maintenance of the bicycle, Adrian sues Barbara for her damages. Will Barbara be protected from liability by the provision in their contract? Explain.

Sharon Love entered into a written lease agreement with Monarch Apartments for apartment 4 at 441 Winfield in Topeka, Kansas. Shortly after moving in, she experienced serious problems with termites. Her walls swelled, clouds of dirt came out, and when she checked on her children one night, she saw termites flying around the room. She complained to Monarch, which arranged for the apartment to be fumigated. When the termite problem persisted, Monarch moved Love and her children to apartment 2. Upon moving in, Love noticed that roaches crawled over the walls, ceilings, and floors of the apartment. She complained, and Monarch called an exterminator, who sprayed the apartment. When the roach problem persisted, Love vacated the premises. Has Love lawfully terminated the lease? Explain.

Peter Andrus owned an apartment building that he had insured under a fire insurance policy sold by J.C. Durick Insurance (Durick). Two months prior to the expiration of the policy, Durick notified Andrus that the building should be insured for $48,000 (or 80 percent of the building’s value), as required by the insurance company. Andrus replied that (1) he wanted insurance to match the amount of the outstanding mortgage on the building (i.e., $24,000) and (2) if Durick could not sell this insurance, he would go elsewhere. Durick sent a new insurance policy in the face amount of $48,000 with the notation that the policy was automatically accepted unless Andrus notified him to the contrary. Andrus did not reply. However, he did not pay the premiums on the policy. Durick sued Andrus to recover these premiums. Discuss who wins? Provide justification for your argument/position.