Janice purchased a new home and entered into a rental contract for a sprinkler system. There were no services provided by the lawn care company, only the sprinkler system itself which was installed by Janice. One of the sprinkler heads did not function properly and ran continuously after hours. Janice’s basement flooded and she sued the company for damages. The contract contained an exemption clause restricting the lawn care company’s liability for water damage to $100. Additionally the contract did not include any express term with respect to fitness for purpose. In these circumstances, given that services were not provided by the seller in relation to a consumer contract, Janice would likely
a) fail at trial because exemption clauses are permitted by sale of goods legislation.
b) succeed at trial because sellers cannot escape liability in relation to consumer contracts by requiring buyers to sign exemption clauses.
c) fail because the contract was not breached by the seller.
d) fail because the damages sustained by Janice were too remote and did not flow from the loss.
e) succeed because Janice installed the sprinkler system on her own and likely was not given proper instructions from seller.
Quick Reply
