The main issue of the question is whether Yan Xiang can claim damage from the bus driver or not.
The subject matter of the case is attracting the Provisions Of Exclusion Clause. Chapter 8 of the Singapore Contract is deals with the provision of exclusion clause. By this clause, the parties to a contract can exclude their liability. The term has been defined under the provision of Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
In this case, contract has been made in between Yan Xiang and the bus driver and the provision regarding the liability of the bus was mentioned inside the bus. Therefore, it was not known to Yan Xiang when contract was being made with the bus driver. No one told him about the provision that is mentioned in the backside of the ticket.
Therefore, it can be said that Yan Xiang has the right to claim damage in the ground of breach of contract.
The issue of the case is whether Zi Xin can breach the implied terms of the employment contract or not.
The matter of the case is based on implied terms of contract. it has been stated under the Singapore Contract Act that the terms of employment contract that are implied in nature should not be against the public policy.
In this case, implied terms of the employment contract have been violated.
Therefore, breach had been made.
Issue of the case is what the effects of exclusion of liability clause are.
The provision regarding volenti non fit injuria is applicable here. in Morris v Murray  3 All ER 801, the principle was observed.
In case of flying fox, there was a risk and knowing the fact, Edison boarded in it.
Therefore, it is held that Nelson can be released under the provision of volenti non fit injuria.