Question

Scott Corporation (SC) is planning to import hand sanitizers into Trinidad and Tobago because of the increase in demand due to the Bird Flu influencer. SC hired Trailblazer Corporation (TB) to transport the shipment of hand sanitizers from the Port of Pineapple on Monday 1st October 2018 to SC’s warehouse in the Bamboo at a cost of TT$10,000. The shipment of hand sanitizers has to be stored at a particular temperature, to prevent it from been damaged during transportation, for which TB was duly informed. At a meeting on 20th September 2018 between SC and TB to discuss the transportation arrangement, TB’s CEO Mr. Right, presented SC’s CEO Mr. Wrong with a form containing an agreement to transport, which outlined the date and cost of delivery as stated above. The form also stated inter alia ”please read conditions of contract prior to signing” Mr Wrong signed the form, but failed to read the entire contents of the signed document. The conditions included an exclusion clause exempting TB from all losses however caused during the transportation of the sanitizers. The shipment of hand sanitizers was subsequently damaged during transportation, because it was stored at the wrong temperature. SC on inspection the shipment thereafter, saw the damaged sanitizers and has indicated that they will seek damages via a legal action against TB. However, TB is seeking to rely on the exclusion clause mentioned above. SC Corporation is arguing that they are not bound by the clause, because when their CEO signed the document, he was of the view that he was simply signing an agreement for the transport of the shipment of hand sanitizers. They also argued that if such clause is so critical to TB in terms of the exclusion of liability, merely stating ”please read condition of contract prior to signing” was not sufficient; indeed, some express notice of the exclusion clause should have given bearing in mind that the parties never contracted previously. TB is holding strong to their view that they are protected by the exclusion clause and as such SC cannot sue them. Advise SC Corporation.

Answer 1

Scott Corporation cannot press any charges against Trailblazer Corporation because Trailblazer Corporation specifically mentioned an exclusion clause in the contract which exempts TB from all losses caused during the transportation of the sanitizers. The contract also mentions that conditions of contract must be read thoroughly prior to signing. Hence CEO of Scott Corporation, Mr. Wrong is at fault since he must have gone through the contract in detail and read all the terms and conditions of the contract including the exclusion clause prior to signing the contract. The company cannot press any charges against Trailblazer Corporation because they have mentioned their terms in the contract and are not liable for damage to hand sanitizers during transportation.