How to Review Loss of Data Named Inside a Liability Exclusion

Friday 9 October 2026 is the signature date. Delyth reviews a 14-person UK brand of oak picture frames from a Cardigan workshop. English law. Courts of England and Wales.

The packet — the papers she will sign — is an MSA — the master services agreement — with Teifi Ledger Ltd in Aberystwyth.

The hidden risk sits in clause 16.2. For example, the Supplier has no liability for loss or corruption of Customer Data.

Clause 16.3 then bars indirect or consequential loss, including loss of profit and business interruption.

Clause 9.4 puts complete copies on the customer. It also says the Supplier’s own backups do not make the Supplier responsible.

The DPA — the data processing addendum — still promises a timely restore of personal data after an incident.

On 12 September 2026 the live SKU file for frame FR-21 was corrupted. A re-key of 1,180 lines is quoted at about £1,640. That figure is this packet, not a court finding.

Slack also folds in a Fishguard shop window of about £3,210. That window is this note only.

Slack says the named line already kills the re-key bill, and that the window is the same head. That is the typical mistake. The pressure is Friday.

Disclaimer: Checkory provides AI support, not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for binding decisions.

How do you mark the named data line?

A named loss-or-corruption sentence is its own excluded head. It is not an example under consequential loss. Mark 16.2 and 16.3 apart before you sign.

A Norton Rose Fulbright primer says contracts often exclude loss of data whether or not it is direct. Resist that where storage is the service.

A Norton Rose cyber note says a wide loss-or-corruption exclusion is a poor fit where the provider secures the customer’s data. That is colour. It does not decide clause 16.2.

The Hill Dickinson note shows the drafting pair. A standalone head can cut that type of loss whether it is direct or indirect. An including-list under indirect loss is examples only.

Do not paste the profit sample onto clause 16.2. In practice, quote 16.2 on its own line. Treat the including-line in 16.3 as a second mark.

How do you split the re-key bill from the shop window?

A re-key bill is the cost of rebuilding the file. A shop window is lost trading while the file is dark. They are not one head. Split them before you negotiate anything else.

The £1,640 quote is this packet. It covers 1,180 lines for frame FR-21. It is not a market tariff. It is not a judgment.

The £3,210 window is this Slack note. It is a forecast for a Fishguard shop. Avoid merging it into the re-key.

Norton Rose says correcting corrupted data is often negotiated back in, sometimes only to the last backup. That is a restore idea. It is not the shop window.

The Addleshaw Goddard note records 2 Entertain v Sony. Interruption of business was excluded only where it was indirect. The court held the fire interruption was direct.

That clause did not name loss of data. Do not say it decides FR-21. It is colour that a window is not automatically consequential.

Royal Devon v ATOS kept reconstitution of lost data in a limited limb, and kept lost profits out. Do not import that sum. The judgment was read on 6 October 2026 and is not linked here.

Log the path as re-key bill → shop window → different heads.

When to read a backup duty as part of the exclusion?

A customer copy duty can make a data exclusion bite harder. Read clause 9.4 beside clause 16.2, not instead of it.

Clause 9.4 says the customer keeps complete copies. It then bars loss of data to the extent those copies were not kept. It says the Supplier’s backups are for the Supplier only.

A February 2026 SaaS form puts backups on the customer, and then excludes corruption of data whether direct or indirect. Do not paste it. Do not copy a fee figure from it.

In practice, mark 9.4 as a bite, not as proof that Delyth caused the corruption. A missing local copy is a fact to log. It is not an automatic wipe.

The security line says a daily backup, with no dated restore test. Do not treat it as a promise to pay the re-key.

What does a DPA restore line change on this page?

A restore promise in the DPA does not delete clause 16.2. Both sentences can sit on the same packet. The job is to mark the clash.

DPA clause 4.2 says the processor shall restore availability and access to personal data in a timely manner after an incident. That echo is Article 32(1)(c) of the UK GDPR, set out on legislation.gov.uk.

The ICO security guide says the UK GDPR does not define a timely manner. It depends on the systems and the risk if data is unavailable. A backup is an example, not a customer-only duty.

The ICO says those measures also apply to a processor. Article 32 is not a damages clause. It does not void a business exclusion. The tension is the review.

A CMS note explains the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. On standard terms, an exclusion of breach must be reasonable. That is a question of fact when the contract is made.

Do not say clause 16.2 fails that test. Check whether the MSA is the Supplier’s standard terms, then leave the answer to a lawyer.

The typical mistake is to treat clause 4.2 as a carve-out that was never written. Add the carve-out in words, or do not pretend it is there.

Which page covers the super-cap, and which covers the whole tour?

This page is the named data limb. It is not a higher cap for data-protection claims. It is not the whole consequential-loss exclusion.

A larger cap for data-protection breaches is a separate negotiation. Do not copy a percentage. Do not build that ladder here.

If the fight is the cap number, open the super-cap review. If the fight is the bare consequential label, open the consequential-loss review. Do not restart those hunts here.

What to carve, narrow, or walk away from?

Three choices sit in front of Friday. Carve reconstitution costs back in. Narrow the backup duty so it does not wipe Supplier-caused loss. Or walk.

A reconstitution carve-out should name the re-key and a usable file. It should not swallow the shop window, which stays under clause 16.3.

A narrower backup duty should not kill the claim whenever a copy is missing. Teifi Ledger held the tenant. You can negotiate a reconstitution line. You cannot invent one later.

Do not sign when clause 16.2, clause 9.4, and clause 4.2 still tell three stories. Pause if you cannot point to a written carve-out.

Before you sign, read the named head out loud. If Slack’s sentence is longer than the clause, stop.