Excluding liability for negligence in a business contract (Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 s.2)
Agnieszka Nowak runs a bakery as a sole trader. In January 2026 she signed Ovenserve Ltd's standard terms for an annual service of her commercial oven. Clause 9 states: "Ovenserve shall not be liable for any death, personal injury, loss or damage of any kind, however caused, including by its negligence." In June 2026 an Ovenserve engineer negligently refitted a gas valve. The next morning the oven caught fire, burning Agnieszka's arm and destroying £3,000 of stock. Ovenserve relies on clause 9 and points out that Agnieszka read and signed the terms.
Which of the following best describes the effect of clause 9 under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer C: Clause 9 cannot exclude liability for her injury, and excludes liability for the lost stock only if it satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
Under UCTA 1977 s.2, liability for negligently caused death or personal injury can never be excluded, and liability for other negligently caused loss can be excluded only if the term is reasonable.
Excluding liability for negligence in a business contract (Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 s.2)
Section 2(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 provides that a person cannot by reference to any contract term exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence, so clause 9 is ineffective as regards Agnieszka's burnt arm. For other loss or damage, s.2(2) provides that liability for negligence can be excluded or restricted only in so far as the term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness, so the exclusion of liability for the destroyed stock stands or falls on that test. Section 2 applies here because, under s.2(4), it is disapplied only for consumer contracts, and Agnieszka contracted for the purposes of her bakery business, so she is not a consumer (Consumer Rights Act 2015, s.2(3)).
Why A is wrong: Section 2(1) absolutely bars excluding liability for negligently caused personal injury, even in business contracts.
Why B is wrong: She contracted for her business, so she is not a consumer under CRA 2015 s.2(3) and UCTA s.2 applies.
Why D is wrong: Under s.2(2) the exclusion for other loss is effective only if it satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.
Why E is wrong: Section 2(3) says agreement to or awareness of the term is not of itself voluntary acceptance of the risk.
That's today's practice done. Another featured question tomorrow.
Related questions
Disclaimer of liability for negligent advice to a non-client business (UCTA 1977 ss.2(2), 11(3), 13)
Which of the following best describes the effect of the notice on any claim by Kestrel against Vantage in negligence?
Exclusion notice displayed after the contract is made at an automatic car park barrier (Thornton)
Leaving aside any statutory controls on exclusion clauses, which of the following best describes whether the exclusion clause is part of the contract?
Excluding liability for satisfactory quality in a consumer sale (Consumer Rights Act 2015 s.31)
Which of the following best describes the effect of the clause?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.