An exclusion clause that merely limits contractual liability (such as a clause disclaiming warranties as to fitness for purpose) provides a much less direct and more obscure warning than an express disclaimer of reliability, and is not necessarily inconsistent with pre-contractual representations intended to induce entry into the contract. The question of whether conduct is misleading and deceptive is objective; the question of whether the claimant relied on the conduct to its loss is subjective. Whether an exclusion clause negates a s 52 TPA claim depends on all the circumstances, including the nature of the parties, the character of the transaction, the terms of the representations, and the terms and context of the exclusion clause.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 8 later cases that cite this judgment.