OlujobaSamuel:
the lawyer that drafted that caveat needs to be derobed, with my little knowledge of law of contract, i know such disclaimer cant stand the test of law, you cant absolve yourself of the consequence of any act that was directly related to your negligence.
maybe lawyers fit help us sha,

You're right. No company or store is free from a lawsuit arising due to negligence in the event of an injury sustained by a customer or employee during the official working hours of the store.

By the way, its tort law that governs such an incident. Tort law basically covers civil wrongs, other than a breach of contract, that result in an injury (both physical and non-physical) to a person.

AfroSisi:
"All vehicles are packed at the risk of the parker."

What kind of English is that

Onitsha mall English.

dubemnaija:


come, ur brain dey pain you? nor lemme slap you o!

Are you angry at his word or the fact that he beat you to the ftc?

dubemnaija:
lalasticlala, seun, mynd44.... Dont you guys think we should let the shoppers know about this by moving this thread to the FP?

So the mall is now like a ponzi scheme abi?

dubemnaija:
I came across this notice at Onitsha shoprite today and I kukuma no understand.

From what I read there, they are saying that should in-case anything happens at that mall, even a collapse (God forbid), they cannot be held liable or subjected to any lawsuit or even pay damages to any one.

Most shoppers there does not know of this clause. They even expressly said that you cant hold them responsible even with any event that maybe caused due to their carelessness or negligent.

And I ask, who then should be held responsible if something bad happens at that place; me,the Government, I guess not?

They are displaying their ignorance of the law. You cannot escape liability by such stupid writing if by their act of negligence anything happens to the life of a shopper. Are they telling me they can do this in South Africa where they are coming from? Naija where anybody comes to poo and get resounding ovation

dubemnaija:


come, ur brain dey pain you? nor lemme slap you o!

Bro easy na. You wan empty the skull?

laudate:


What do you mean by my state govt? Did anyone tell you that I come from that state? And kindly stop defending the indefensible here. The mall may be owned by a state govt, but Shoprite can take cover under their bad policies, not so?

A number of South African companies perpetrate wrong actions here, that they cannot carry out in SA. Ask their employees. A number of their white South African managers are racist, and I had cause to call out one for his misbehaviour a few years back. Cure yourself of your slavish neocolonialism, please!! The SA companies are not providing those products for free - the Nigerian shoppers are paying for them, and making it possible for the SA companies to make huge profits, and repatriate them back to their own country!!

What are you saying ? We are talking about the supposed notice board and you are ranting about another thing entirely, what has Shoprite got to do with the Notice board How is Shoprite connected to it?? Tell me Please?

kolado:
How do you go around it? I am eager to know, mr lawyer

as soon as I receive your consultation fee we are good to go

AfroSisi:
"All vehicles are packed at the risk of the parker."

What kind of English is that

All vehicles are parked at the risk of the Parker or the Parkie

CFCman:

You're right. No company or store is free from a lawsuit arising due to negligence in the event of an injury sustained by a customer or employee during the official working hours of the store.

By the way, its tort law that governs such an incident. Tort law basically covers civil wrongs, other than a breach of contract, that result in an injury (both physical and non-physical) to a person.

thanks bro. sometimes i see some lawyers do things that i questioned how they got their calling. There is one even claiming to use force to resolve a right of way dispute in my area, he was told to go through the authority/agency, he dey use community head wey the land no even dey under that one family authority

DuBLINGreenb:

as soon as I receive your consultation fee we are good to go

Oh you can't give me legal advice on this elementary principle of law pro bono. Well done Sir.

IPOB una no go demonstrate now o see Wetin go kill una and una pretend say una no see am. OK na I dey watch

dubemnaija:


I am not talking about cars being parked at owner's risk. Read the place they said about not being held responsible from any damage that might be caused due to their carelessness or negligent .....

It's an exclusion clause. When u suffer such damage which falls within such exclusion clause, it doesn't save the company from the normal liability that shld flow from such damage, loss or injury. Dis is because all u need to show to make a successful claim for damages is dat th company was negligent in its management of the premises. Such exclusion clause wld not avail dem if they were actually negligent.

DuBLINGreenb:

as soon as I receive your consultation fee we are good to go

Don't tell me this will stand in a court of law?...
There's no way this can superceed existing law of the land. Abi the lawyers in the house am i mistaken?

Babe those sisi at bio package well well ohhhh. Wats d deal... Hw man fit mingle... Am single ND searching

AfroSisi:
"All vehicles are packed at the risk of the parker."

What kind of English is that

This is very simple people, you have to know the whole facts before critising that signage. First, it's a caveat.

Second, the owner of the property are not the operators of the property. This means that Shoprite as for instance, is an anchor tenant, same applies to other merchants anchoring on the owner's property.

Third, I want to believe the owner of the property is Broll, a South African real estate company.

In summary, Broll is saying they are not liable for any damage caused by any of the anchor tenants.

Why would Broll be liable where there's no nexus between Broll and the customers? In this sense, Broll is only a conduit pipe connecting the anchor tenants and the customers.

godquality:
Don't tell me this will stand in a court of law?...
There's no way this can superceed existing law of the land. Abi the lawyers in the house am i mistaken?

It will stand if you sue the owner instead of the occupier, unless they are one and the same.

DavidEsq:

It's an exclusion clause. When u suffer such damage which falls within such exclusion clause, it doesn't save the company from the normal liability that shld flow from such damage, loss or injury. Dis is because all u need to show to make a successful claim for damages is dat th company was negligent in its management of the premises. Such exclusion clause wld not avail dem if they were actually negligent.

This can only apply if the damage results from structural collapse and it must not be too remote. As stated earlier the owners of these malls are different from the operators. Damages such as defective products, fighting, slip and fall, stolen vehicles, etc goes to the operators not the owners.

There's fire on the mountain!
RUN! RUN!! RUN!!!
These careless south africans must be called to order asap!

Bugatie:


No need to panic, most companies clearly indicate that "cars are parked at owners risk"

No need to panic gini? Na only "cars are parked at owners risk" u see? U nor see "lives at owners risk" abeg na to port to another Mall sharp sharp. The Mall owners have no humane side at all and don't deserve patronage from human beings.

claycares:


This can only apply if the damage results from structural collapse and it must not be too remote. As stated earlier the owners of these malls are different from the operators. Damages such as defective products, fighting, slip and fall, stolen vehicles, etc goes to the operators not the owners.

The issue afoot is whether that exclusion clause wld fly in the face of damage, loss o injury. The question of who becomes liable is only relevant when the question of the existence of liability or otherwise us settled.

dubemnaija:
I came across this notice at Onitsha shoprite today and I kukuma no understand.

From what I read there, they are saying that should in-case anything happens at that mall, even a collapse (God forbid), they cannot be held liable or subjected to any lawsuit or even pay damages to any one.

Most shoppers there does not know of this clause. They even expressly said that you cant hold them responsible even with any event that maybe caused due to their carelessness or negligent.

And I ask, who then should be held responsible if something bad happens at that place; me,the Government, I guess not?

The problem is that because this is Nigeria, they can get away with posting things like that. But believe me, posting that does not negate their legal responsibility to ensure the safety and care of each person that comes onto their premises. This is just a tactic used by business owners to reduce the chances of customers/business invitees of suing them/holding them responsible.

eddiebruk:
What are you saying ? We are talking about the supposed notice board and you are ranting about another thing entirely, what has Shoprite got to do with the Notice board How is Shoprite connected to it?? Tell me Please?

You brainwashed South African nerd, go back & read the notice board again. Does it confer an advantage on Shoprite or not? If you fall & break your leg inside Shoprite's hall, due to the fact that their staff left the floor wet & slippery, what do you think Shoprite management would do? They would just take refuge under that sign, and refrain from accepting liability. Or do you think Shoprite management would immediately accept responsibility, and ignore the sign?

And my last post was not a rant, but a statement of fact. Shoprite is not providing products to the Nigerian public for free, neither are they doing them a favour. In fact, Nigerian shoppers are making Shoprite rich, by patronising them! Before Shoprite, we got our products from other sources. And after Shoprite, we would still get such products from other different sources. Go figure!!

AfroSisi:
"All vehicles are packed at the risk of the parker."

What kind of English is that

because not everyone owns the car they drive

DavidEsq:

The issue afoot is whether that exclusion clause wld fly in the face of damage, loss o injury. The question of who becomes liable is only relevant when the question of the existence of liability or otherwise us settled.

.

This depends extensively on the type of damage and who the defendants are. I do not agree with this your statement the law - The question of who becomes liable is only relevant when the question of the existence of liability or otherwise us settled. - You need to identify the party that's liable before filing your originating processes. Pursuant to my earlier responses, in the retail industry, the issue of liability is a function of the kind of damaged suffered by the claimant. If structural defects results to the damage, then the developer would be liable and then, the caveat would not vindicate the developer of the property. On the other hand, if the damage suffered by the claimant is a function of the defective shelves the occupier installed on the property, then the caveat would absolve the developer but not the occupier. So, even if you sue the developer and establish a liability, the courts would not find the developer liable. So, if you sue the wrong defendants, whether or not liability has been established or settled, the whole exercise become worthless.

laudate:


You brainwashed South African nerd, go back & read the notice board again. Does it confer an advantage on Shoprite or not? If you fall & break your leg inside Shoprite's hall, due to the fact that their staff left the floor wet & slippery, what do you think Shoprite management would do? They would just take refuge under that sign, and refrain from accepting liability. Or do you think Shoprite management would immediately accept responsibility, and ignore the sign?

And my last post was not a rant, but a statement of fact. Shoprite is not providing products to the Nigerian public for free, neither are they doing them a favour. In fact, Nigerian shoppers are making Shoprite rich, by patronising them! Before Shoprite, we got our products from other sources. And after Shoprite, we would still get such products from other different sources. Go figure!!

Did the notice read that only Shoprite has a store in the Mall?

eddiebruk:
Did the notice read that only Shoprite has a store in the Mall?

Now you are digressing & really sounding stewpid....

laudate:


Now you are digressing & really sounding stewpid....

Answer the question and stop making your parents feel disappointed for wasting their pension on your education that's if they ever had a Job

eddiebruk:
Answer the question and stop making your parents feel disappointed for wasting their pension on your education that's if they ever had a Job

Nah... it is your own parents that wasted their youth, resources & energy in sending you to school. You flunked courses on critical thinking and reasoning, by the time you dropped out. That is why you have now digressed from the main topic to clutch at straws by asking if the notice said it is only Shoprite that has a store in the mall. Go back & collect a refund from your tutors.

laudate:


Nah... it is your own parents that wasted their youth, resources & energy in sending you to school. You flunked courses on critical thinking and reasoning, by the time you dropped out. That is why you have now digressed from the main topic to clutch at straws by asking if the notice said it is only Shoprite that has a store in the mall. Go back & collect a refund from your tutors.

Funny thing is you don't even know what you are saying, how demented of you

eddiebruk:
Funny thing is you don't even know what you are saying, how demented of you

And how schizophrenic of you. You asked a question that is unrelated to the topic because you wanted to cause a digression, and you have the guts to make this claim because I could see through your antics? Get outta my sight and get a life!