in question 3 wasn't the question we had to answer whether mr ho would be successful with the defence that he had an exclusion clause?...not what sarah could sue for?..anyway doesn't matter anyway cant change it now
in question 3 wasn't the question we had to answer whether mr ho would be successful with the defence that he had an exclusion clause?...not what sarah could sue for?..anyway doesn't matter anyway cant change it now
yeh i just included the negligence bit in the conclusion and referenced a case where the exclusion clause didnt cover the defendent from claims against him in negligence.