requirements for exculpatory clause to be valid and discuss whether these two

[tami1809]

particular clause are enforceabl XYZ Company is a national company that installs computers for major
corporations. In all of its contracts, there is a clause that states that
XYZ is not liable for damages caused by the negligent installation of the
computers. XYZ also operates a factory where the computers are made. Many
people work in this factory and every employee is required to sign a release
whereby XYZ is absolved from any liability for damages caused by its
negligence. Discuss the requirements for an exculpatory clause to be valid and
discuss whether these two particular clauses are enforceable.

 

[verybizzy2000]

I would say that exculpatory clauses are valid only if they don't violate public policy and if they seek to limit liability, not remove it completely.

In the case of installation for other companies, the clause is valid because it only seeks to limit the types of damages it can be responsible for. That is not a complete bar of legal remedies for the corporation which may be entitled to recover any fee it pays for the installation, or be absolved from paying a fee for installation. These types of contracts are routinely enforceable. For example, home inspectors typically use contracts that provide their liability is limited to the amount of the fee charged for their service.

On the other hand, the release from the employees is void as against public policy. It may be contrary to workplace laws and regulations, such as OSHA,and is contrary to worker's compensation laws. It potentially involves personal injuries versus property damage.

 

[Ollie]

Such clauses can't be against public policy. The clauses also need to be clear with unambiguous language. They can also limit liability, but not bar recovery for gross negligence. I would say both are valid however, because the people can work elsewhere and get their computers elsewhere. This is a topic many courts are split on.