In the two cases of Trigg and Fraser Jewelers, the Ontario Court of Appeal reached opposite decisions, upholding the limitation of liability clause in one case but not the other. What reasons did the court give that can explain this result?
A)Mr. Trigg did not have notice of the exemption clause whereas Fraser Jewelers did.
B)The burden of proof was on the defendant in the Trigg case but on the plaintiff in Fraser Jewelers.
C)In Trigg, there was a misrepresentation by the sale agent; in Fraser Jewelers, there was none.
D)In Trigg the damage was so great it would be unfair to not give him damages
E)In Fraser the damages were too remote

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Mr. Trigg did not have notice of the exemption clause whereas Fraser Jewelers did.

In the Two Cases of Trigg and Fraser Jewelers, the Ontario