This approach has been criticised because it restricts corporate liability to the acts of directors and a few high-level managers.

Its general pattern is that if clauses restrict liability, particularly negligence, of one party, the clause must pass the "reasonableness test" in section 11 and Schedule 2.

Section 2(2) stipulates that any clause restricting liability for loss to property has to pass the "reasonableness test".

These time bars are clauses whose purpose and effect is to restrict or exclude liability.

The Court of Appeal distinguished Phillips and held that s2(1) was concerned with attempts to restrict or exclude liability to the victim of the negligence.

This can be illustrated through the increasing trend of restricting liability by reference to labelling and the insertion of instructions for use.

Policy factors which restrict liability in negligence cases do not apply in intentional torts.

The final type of general exclusion clause which is also frequently included is one which restricts or excludes liability for various kinds of economic loss.

This being the case, it is not possible simply to exclude or, indeed, restrict, liability for the supply of goods which infringe third party intellectual property rights.

If the seller wishes to restrict or exclude liability for infringement of third party intellectual property rights there are, however, some options open to him.