Once a document has been signed by the parties to the contract the court considers that terms of the contract are binding on the parties even if they have not gone through the terms as stated in the case of L'Estrange v Graucob  2 management 394. An exclusion clause can also be added through notice if it is brought to the notice of the other party before the contract is formed as per Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co  1 KB 805.
In the case of White v John Warwick  1 WLR 1285 a tradesman cycle was hired by the plaintiff from the defendant. It was stated in the written agreement that the owner shall not be rendered liable for any sort of personal injury. While riding the cycle injury had been caused to the plaintiff as the saddle titled forward. It was held by the court that the defendant was liable in both contractual as well as negligence liability. In this case it was further stated by the court at due to the unclear wording of the exclusion clause it is only effective to provide protection to the defendant actual liability and not for liability for negligence.
The principles of vicarious liability make the employer liable for the negligent actions of the employee as per Limpus v London General Omnibus Company CExC ((1862) 1 H&C 526
Andexclusion clause with limits the liability of the school for any damage whatsoever is present at the entrance of the school. This means that the terms are brought to the notice of the party before the contract is formed. The parents have also been asked to sign a declaratory which means that the clause has been included to signature. However the clause would not be effective because firstly, the clause only limits liability of the school at the premises. Secondly through the application of the White v John Warwick case as the wording of the clause is very unclear it would not be able to exclude the liability in terms of negligence committed by the driver. The school would be liable for the actions of the driver as per vicarious liability.
The school is liable to pay for the spects which have been damaged.
Whether Ambrose is entitled to get 92% of the K50000 as claimed by him
In the case of Solomon v A Solomon & Co. (1897) AC 22 the defendant had formed the company to continue his shoe business. The defendant held 92 shares in the company. The defendant had been issued debentures worth $10,000 by the company. Debentures are a form of secured loans. The company had been subjected to liquidation as the business of the company was not going well. A liquidator was appointed by the court. The liquidator filed a claim against the defendant claiming that the intention of the defendant to make the company was to harm the creditors . The court rejected the claim of the liquidator and ruled in favour of the defendant. The reason for this was that the court stated that a company is a separate legal entity. Once the company has been created by compliance with rules and regulations provided under the Companies Act it becomes a separate legal person whose identity is unique from the existence of its shareholders. The court further stated that the debentures had been issued with total compliance of law by the company. Therefore are ruling has been made by the court at the defendant was entitled to get the $10,000 debentures when the company was liquidated before others and secured creditors were to be paid.
It has being provided by the situation that MEEC has been making losses for last 2 years. 1 million worth secured loan has been injected by Ambrose into the company so that it can be revived. Being a secured creditor Ambrose has got 1 million which has only left K850,000 as the assets of the company. The creditors have been provided with the £800,000 owed by them. In the given situation it can be stated that the remaining 50000 has to be divided between the shareholders of the company. As the company was a separate legal entity Ambrose has the right to claim his secure debt first. In addition the remaining money is also to be divided among the shareholders based on their share holding percentage. In the given situation as members holds 92% of the shares he is entitled to get 92% of the 50000.
It can be concluded from the above discussion that Ambrose is entitled to get 92% of the 50000 which is equal to 46000.
Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co  1 KB 805.
L'Estrange v Graucob  2 KB 394
Limpus v London General Omnibus Company CExC ((1862) 1 operating 526
Solomon v A Solomon & Co. (1897) AC 22
White v John Warwick  1 WLR 1285