| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Gillespie Bros & Co Ltd v Roy Bowles Transport Ltd ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Gillespie Bros & Co Ltd v Roy Bowles Transport Ltd
''Gillespie Bros & Co Ltd v Roy Bowles Transport Ltd'' () 1 QB 400 is an English contract law case, concerning the interpretation of unfair contract terms.
==Facts==
Rennie Hogg Ltd hired a van and driver from Roy Bowles (the ‘carrier’) on a monthly basis under the Road Haulage Association’s Conditions of Carriage 1967. Clause 3(4) said Rennie Hogg would ‘keep the carrier indemnified against all claims or demands whatsoever by whomsoever made in excess of the liability of the carrier under these conditions’ and clause 12 limited the liability to the value of one consignment. Gillespie Bros had three gold watched transported by Rennie Hogg, but they were stolen at Heathrow, on the way between Switzerland and Jamaica, out the back of the van while the driver was signing for it in the warehouse. Gillespie Bros brought a claim against Roy Bowles.
Browne J awarded £1008 in damages, finding that Roy Bowles employee was negligent. Roy Bowles brought proceedings to be indemnified under clause 3(4) but it was held that the exemption clause could not cover their own negligence.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Gillespie Bros & Co Ltd v Roy Bowles Transport Ltd」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|