Too often, when negotiating contracts or revising T&C for a client, I find that no-one really knows why a clause is there or what it is meant to do.
Not so in this clause from Trebor v ADT. It explains why it is there:
“Only you know the value of your premises, its property and contents. We are not and cannot be an insurer of your premises and its contents and our charges are in no way related to their value.
The fire and security industry is unique having regard to the relatively low cost of the services and the high values which can be at risk. For this reason, we limit the amount of our liability and the most we will be prepared to pay for any loss will be £[ ]. “
It is also explains more about the why of contracts – you see contracts are not the buyer’s only safety-net. If the buyer relies wholly on the supplier to cover all possible losses, it would be unreasonable and unfair. The buyer has to protect itself in other ways, eg using insurance.
This explanation helps buyers understand why a specific clause was included in the contract.
If you have clauses which you constantly have to explain, why not pre-empt those queries and add the why into the contract?