What happen in the case of karsales v wallis

The issue in this case was whether the exclusion clause was valid even in cases where there was a fundamental breach of the contract.

Explanation:

The Defendant, Mr. Wallis, had agreed to buy a used car if the vendor was able to find a company in which the Defendant could enter into a hire-purchase agreement. The vendor found such a company. Once the agreement was entered into, the Defendant inspected the vehicle he had agreed to purchase through the hire purchase agreement and found that it had been sustainable altered from the version he had seen and agreed to buy. Mainly, the radio was missing, as were the chrome strips around the body, the new tires had been replaced by old ones, the bumper was not held together with rope and perhaps most importantly, the car could not start. Mr. Wallis refused to pay for the car. The hire purchase agreement contained an exclusion clause which stated that ‘No condition or warranty that the vehicle is roadworthy or as to its age, condition or fitness for any purpose is given by the owner or implied herein.’

the first part of the statute of limitations is the standard deadline, which gives victims of medical malpractice a certain number of years -- usually anywhere from two to six years, depending on the state -- after the malpractice occurred within which to file a lawsuit.

answer: the answer is d

explanation: the answer is d because if motorcycles are always in your blind spot and you don't see them this can result into an unwanted collision and result in serious injury or death. therefore this is not a safe skill you can use regarding motorcycles.