Limited Liability Clauses Involve Contract Terms That Attempt to Impose Risk Exposure Caps | Empowered Legal Services
Helpful?
Yes No Share to Facebook

Limited Liability Clauses Involve Contract Terms That Attempt to Impose Risk Exposure Caps


Is a Clause In a Contract That Puts a Limit On the Amount of Liability a Business Be Liable For Legal?

Generally, Limited Liability Clauses Are Enforceable If the Exact Circumstance Described In the Clause Is What Actually Occurs. Inversely, Limited Liability Clauses Purported As Applicable to Anything and Everything That Could Happen Are Unenforceable.

Understanding When a Limited Liability Clause May Be Unenforceable Without Legal Effect

Limited Liability Clauses Within Contract Document Often businesses will attempt to impose a limited liability clause within contractual agreements.  To the party against whom such a clause is against, such a clause can appear ominous at first glance. Where such a clause is written in a manner that is specific to a clearly stated risk, the limited liability clause may stand up as enforceable; however, a generic and broad blanket clause may be deemed unenforceable.

The Law

The law relating to limited liability clauses restricts the validity of such clauses to circumstances that are specificly clear and exact.  Essentially, a broad blanket style limited liability clause fails to negate liability.  For a clause to apply, the specific concern that actually arises must be identified within the clause.  Attempts to exclude liability for general concerns such as, "all defects" or "any errors" will likely fail.  This is especially applicable where the contract containing a purported limited liability clause is a standard form contract known as a contract of adhesion in which the non-drafting party is without opportunity to negotiate the terms of the contract and must either accept the contract as it is or avoid the business transaction altogether.  In regards to limited liability clauses, in Bauer v. The Bank of Montreal, [1980] S.C.R. 102 at 108 the Supreme Court said:

Exemption clauses may broadly be divided into three categories.  First, there are clauses which purport to exempt one party from a substantive obligation to which he would otherwise be subject under the contract, for example, by excluding express or implied terms, by limiting liability to cases of wilful neglect or default, or by binding a buyer of land or goods to accept the property sold subject to "faults", "defects'' or "errors of description".  Secondly, there are clauses which purport to relieve a party in default from the sanctions which would otherwise attach to his breach of contract, such as the liability to be sued for breach or to be liable in damages, or which take away from the other party the right to repudiate or rescind the agreement.  Thirdly, there are clauses which purport to qualify the duty of the party in default to indemnify the other party, for example, by limiting the amount of damages recoverable against him, or by providing a time-limit within which claims must be made.

Contracts falling within these categories are said to be subject to special rules of construction.  In construing such a clause, the court will see that the clause is expressed clearly and that it is limited in its effect to the narrow meaning of the words employed and it must clearly cover the exact circumstances which have arisen in order to afford protection to the party claiming benefit.  It is generally to be construed against the party benefiting from the exemption and this is particularly true where the clause is found in a standard printed form of contract, frequently termed a contract of adhesion, which is presented by one party to the other as the basis of their transaction.

Summary Comment

Clauses that limit liability, or appear and purport to limit liability, are common within many types of contracts; however, the enforceability of such contract clauses will often be limited to a very specific circumstance.  Clauses that are generally vague or state that broad liabilities are limited are likely unenforceable.

Learn More About
Limited Liability Clauses
5

NOTE: A significant multitude of inquiries featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” frequently indicates a pressing requirement for competent legal assistance rather than a particular designation.  In Ontario, licensed paralegals fall under the purview of the same Law Society that governs lawyers and possess the authority to advocate for clients in specific litigation matters.  Advocacy, legal assessment, and procedural expertise are fundamental to this function.  Empowered Legal Services provides legal representation within its licensed jurisdiction, focusing on strategic placement, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy designed to secure efficient and advantageous outcomes for clients.

AR, BN, CA+|EN, DT, ES, FA, FR, GU, HE, HI
IT, KO, PA, PT, RU, TA, TL, UK, UR, VI, ZH
Send a Message to: Empowered Legal Services

NOTE: Do not send confidential details about your case.  Using this website does not establish a legal-representative/client relationship.  Use the website for your introduction with Empowered Legal Services. 
Privacy Policy & Cookies | Terms of Use Your IP Address is: 216.73.216.91
Empowered Legal Services

19 Thorne Street, Suite 201
Cambridge, Ontario
N1R 1S2

37 Miller Street
Parry Sound, Ontario
P2A 1S9

P: (519) 223-3329
E: nicole@empoweredlegal.services

Hours of Business:

09:00AM - 05:00PM
09:00AM - 05:00PM
09:00AM - 05:00PM
09:00AM - 05:00PM
09:00AM - 05:00PM
Monday:
Tuesday:
Wednesday:
Thursday:
Friday:

By appointment only.  Phone for details.
Messages may be left anytime.




Sign
Up

Assistive Controls:  |   |  A A A
Ernie, the AI Bot