Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd
GPTKB entity
Statements (28)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instanceOf |
gptkb:law
|
| gptkbp:area |
contract law
exclusion clauses |
| gptkbp:citation |
[1980] AC 827
|
| gptkbp:country |
gptkb:United_Kingdom
|
| gptkbp:date |
1980
|
| gptkbp:defendant |
Securicor Transport Ltd
|
| gptkbp:hasKeyword |
exclusion clause
contract interpretation fundamental breach |
| gptkbp:heldBy |
fundamental breach does not automatically invalidate exclusion clauses
exclusion clauses are to be interpreted by construction, not by rule of law |
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd
|
| gptkbp:judge |
gptkb:Lord_Fraser_of_Tullybelton
gptkb:Lord_Keith_of_Kinkel gptkb:Lord_Wilberforce gptkb:House_of_Lords gptkb:Lord_Diplock Lord Salmon |
| gptkbp:overruledBy |
Harbutt's Plasticine Ltd v Wayne Tank and Pump Co Ltd
|
| gptkbp:plaintiff |
Photo Production Ltd
|
| gptkbp:plotSummary |
A security guard employed by Securicor set fire to Photo Production's premises; the contract contained an exclusion clause.
|
| gptkbp:predecessor |
interpretation of exclusion clauses in English law
|
| gptkbp:principle |
interpretation of exclusion clauses
fundamental breach doctrine |
| gptkbp:relatedTo |
Harbutt's Plasticine Ltd v Wayne Tank and Pump Co Ltd
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:English_contract_law
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
7
|