### Intestates’ Estates Ordinance 《無遺囑者遺產條例》

10. Construction of documents
(1) References to any Statutes of Distribution in an instrument inter vivos made, or in a will coming into operation, after the commencement* of this Ordinance shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed as references to this Ordinance; and references in such an instrument or will to statutory next-of-kin shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed as referring to the persons who take beneficially on an intestacy under this Ordinance.
(2) Trusts declared by reference to any Statutes of Distribution in an instrument inter vivos made, or in a will coming into operation, before the commencement* of this Ordinance shall, unless the contrary thereby appears, be construed as referring to the law relating to the distribution of effects of intestates which was in force immediately before the commencement* of this Ordinance.
[cf. 1925 c. 23 s. 50 U.K.]

12. Application of Ordinance
This Ordinance shall have effect as regards any person dying intestate after the commencement* of this Ordinance.

13. Transitional provisions for concubinage
(1) Schedule 1 shall have effect with regard to a union of concubinage entered into before 7 October 1971.
(2) In subsection (1) and Schedule 1, union of concubinage (夫妾關係) means a union of concubinage, entered into by a male partner and a female partner before 7 October 1971, under which union the female partner has, during the lifetime of the male partner, been accepted by his wife as his concubine and recognized as such by his family generally.
(3) Where in any proceedings a union of concubinage is proved to have been entered into by a male partner and a female partner before 7 October 1971, it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved that the female partner has, during the lifetime of the male partner, been accepted by his wife as his concubine and recognized as such by his family generally.
(Replaced 57 of 1995 s. 9)

### Control of Exemption Clauses Ordinance 《管制免責條款條例》

1. Short title
This Ordinance may be cited as the Control of Exemption Clauses Ordinance.

2. Interpretation and application

(1) In this Ordinance—
business (業務) includes a profession and the activities of a public body, a public authority, or a board, commission, committee or other body appointed by the Chief Executive or Government; (Amended 65 of 2000 s. 3)
goods (貨品) has the same meaning as in the Sale of Goods Ordinance (Cap. 26);
negligence (疏忽) means the breach—
(a) of any obligation, arising from the express or implied terms of a contract, to take reasonable care or exercise reasonable skill in the performance of the contract;
(b) of any common law duty to take reasonable care or exercise reasonable skill (but not any stricter duty);
(c) of the common duty of care imposed by the Occupiers Liability Ordinance (Cap. 314);

notice (告示) includes an announcement, whether or not in writing, and any other communication or pretended communication;
personal injury (人身傷害) includes any disease and any impairment of physical or mental condition.
(2) In the case of both contract and tort, sections 7 to 12 apply (except where the contrary is stated in section 11(4)) only to business liability, that is liability for breach of obligations or duties arising—
(a) from things done or omitted to be done by a person in the course of a business (whether his own business or another’s); or
(b) from the occupation of premises used for business purposes of the occupier,
and references to liability are to be read accordingly; but liability of an occupier of premises for breach of an obligation or duty towards a person obtaining access to the premises for recreational or educational purposes, being liability for loss or damage suffered by reason of the dangerous state of the premises, is not a business liability of the occupier unless granting that person such access for the purposes concerned falls within the business purposes of the occupier.
(3) In relation to any breach of duty or obligation, it is immaterial whether the breach was inadvertent or intentional, or whether liability for it arises directly or vicariously.
[cf. 1977 c. 50 ss. 1 & 14 U.K.]

### Control of Exemption Clauses Ordinance 《管制免責條款條例》

3. The “reasonableness” test
(1) In relation to a contract term, the requirement of reasonableness for the purposes of this Ordinance and section 4 of the Misrepresentation Ordinance (Cap. 284) is satisfied only if the court or arbitrator determines that the term was a fair and reasonable one to be included having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made.
(2) In determining for the purposes of section 11 or 12 whether a contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness, the court or arbitrator shall have regard in particular to the matters specified in Schedule 2; but this subsection does not prevent the court or arbitrator from holding, in accordance with any rule of law, that a term which purports to exclude or restrict any relevant liability is not a term of the contract.
(3) In relation to a notice (not being a notice having contractual effect), the requirement of reasonableness under this Ordinance is satisfied only if the court or arbitrator determines that it would be fair and reasonable to allow reliance on it, having regard to all the circumstances obtaining when the liability arose or (but for the notice) would have arisen.
(4) In determining (under this Ordinance or the Misrepresentation Ordinance (Cap. 284)) whether a contract term or notice satisfies the requirement of reasonableness, the court or arbitrator shall have regard in particular (but without prejudice to subsection (2)) to whether (and, if so, to what extent) the language in which the term or notice is expressed is a language understood by the person as against whom another person seeks to rely upon the term or notice. (Amended E.R. 5 of 2018)
(5) Where by reference to a contract term or notice a person seeks to restrict liability to a specified sum of money, and the question arises (under this Ordinance or the Misrepresentation Ordinance (Cap. 284)) whether the term or notice satisfies the requirement of reasonableness, the court or arbitrator shall have regard in particular (but without prejudice to subsection (2) or (4)) to—
(a) the resources which he could expect to be available to him for the purpose of meeting the liability should it arise; and
(b) how far it was open to him to cover himself by insurance.
(6) It is for the person claiming that a contract term or notice satisfies the requirement of reasonableness to prove that it does.
[cf. 1977 c. 50 s. 11 U.K.]