However, courts generally hold an exculpatory clause valid if one or more of the following is true. 1. The agreement does not protect against intentional, reckless or grossly negligent conduct 2. The agreement does not involve a business generally thought suitable for public regulation, such as a bus line 3. The party seeking exculpation is not performing a business of great importance to the public or practical necessity for some members of the public 4. The party does not purport to be performing the service to just anybody who comes along (unlike the bus line) 5. The parties are dealing at arms' length, able to bargain about the contract 6. The person or property of the purchaser is not placed under control of the seller, subject to his or his agent's carelessness 7. The clause is not unconscionable 8. The clause is conspicuous and clear ection entilled USE OF PROPERTY. The first paragraph under the USE OF PROPERTY SECTION is entitled "Liability of the Club and the Members," INCURRED BY HIM OR HER RESULTING THEREFROM, AND/OR RESULTING FROM ANY ACT OF ANY OWNER, EMPLOYEE, REPRESENTATIVE OR AGENT OF THE CLUB. Buzz signed the membership contract incorporating the Haudout or that AA specifically pointed the language out to Buzz. Later, Buzz was iyjured in AA's sauna when the bench he was standing on collapsed and threw him to the floor. Buzz sued AA for his injuries. AA claimed the exculpatory clause relieved them of liability. - Discussion 5.1- Buzz Buff v. Awesome Abs, Inc, For this discussion, read Exculpatory Clause and the facts of Buzz Buff v. Awesome Abs, Inc, If you were the judge, who should win - Buzz, the plaintiff, or Awesome Abs, the defendant? Using information from the text, lesson content, and the link above, explain your decision. When you reply to your classmates' posts, defend your decision and reasoning, or explain why their post changed your mind However, courts generally hold an exculpatory clause valid if one or more of the following is true. 1. The agreement does not protect against intentional, reckless or grossly negligent conduct 2. The agreement does not involve a business generally thought suitable for public regulation, such as a bus line 3. The party seeking exculpation is not performing a business of great importance to the public or practical necessity for some members of the public 4. The party does not purport to be performing the service to just anybody who comes along (unlike the bus line) 5. The parties are dealing at arms' length, able to bargain about the contract 6. The person or property of the purchaser is not placed under control of the seller, subject to his or his agent's carelessness 7. The clause is not unconscionable 8. The clause is conspicuous and clear ection entilled USE OF PROPERTY. The first paragraph under the USE OF PROPERTY SECTION is entitled "Liability of the Club and the Members," INCURRED BY HIM OR HER RESULTING THEREFROM, AND/OR RESULTING FROM ANY ACT OF ANY OWNER, EMPLOYEE, REPRESENTATIVE OR AGENT OF THE CLUB. Buzz signed the membership contract incorporating the Haudout or that AA specifically pointed the language out to Buzz. Later, Buzz was iyjured in AA's sauna when the bench he was standing on collapsed and threw him to the floor. Buzz sued AA for his injuries. AA claimed the exculpatory clause relieved them of liability. - Discussion 5.1- Buzz Buff v. Awesome Abs, Inc, For this discussion, read Exculpatory Clause and the facts of Buzz Buff v. Awesome Abs, Inc, If you were the judge, who should win - Buzz, the plaintiff, or Awesome Abs, the defendant? Using information from the text, lesson content, and the link above, explain your decision. When you reply to your classmates' posts, defend your decision and reasoning, or explain why their post changed your mind