A recently read a Singaporean book on contract law, and from what I read*, the common law rule is it'll be enforced exactly as written. Clauses are always enforced so long as they were agreed to beforehand, and don't break the usual limitations on contracts like being illegal. So they have to sign a contract before the work is started or money changes hands, containing the clauses.
But the example clause you've mentioned is a limitation of liability clause, not an exclusion clause. It's covering cases where the robot unexpectedly attacks people and burns the building down.
An exclusion clause would be something like: "(a) X will deliver a robot to Y that cleans a room equal in standard to a professional cleaner [a warranty clause], (b) if it doesn't do so, X will not be liable for damages". That would be enforced* as written. But it's usually better to just not warrant things like that, and instead word it like "X will deliver a robot intended to help keep a room clean, with no guarantee as to the cleaning efficacy", then breach will occur if you don't deliver a robot, but not if it's not great at cleaning.
The limitations I've read about them are: they must be explicit and specific, and they can't cover deliberate breach.
Statutory deviations from this, from what I've seen, are quite limited in scope.
As for "fundamental breach" it's an old concept and has since been laid to rest as a question of contractual construction rather than law. The one remaining case is deviation, which meant if you're shipping something from A to B and you deviate from that (e.g. you take a holiday in the Bahamas on the way and the goods end up rotten), and the contracting party suffers damages as a result of that deviation, you can't rely on an exclusion clause. That overlaps quite a lot with just deliberately breaching the contract though.
So unless you do something ridiculous like supply them a robot that deliberately makes the room dirtier, you can rely on a court to enforce the exclusion clause. The counter party agreed to it, after all.
* not lawyer, don't know what I'm talking about, etc
But the example clause you've mentioned is a limitation of liability clause, not an exclusion clause. It's covering cases where the robot unexpectedly attacks people and burns the building down.
An exclusion clause would be something like: "(a) X will deliver a robot to Y that cleans a room equal in standard to a professional cleaner [a warranty clause], (b) if it doesn't do so, X will not be liable for damages". That would be enforced* as written. But it's usually better to just not warrant things like that, and instead word it like "X will deliver a robot intended to help keep a room clean, with no guarantee as to the cleaning efficacy", then breach will occur if you don't deliver a robot, but not if it's not great at cleaning.
The limitations I've read about them are: they must be explicit and specific, and they can't cover deliberate breach.
Statutory deviations from this, from what I've seen, are quite limited in scope.
As for "fundamental breach" it's an old concept and has since been laid to rest as a question of contractual construction rather than law. The one remaining case is deviation, which meant if you're shipping something from A to B and you deviate from that (e.g. you take a holiday in the Bahamas on the way and the goods end up rotten), and the contracting party suffers damages as a result of that deviation, you can't rely on an exclusion clause. That overlaps quite a lot with just deliberately breaching the contract though.
So unless you do something ridiculous like supply them a robot that deliberately makes the room dirtier, you can rely on a court to enforce the exclusion clause. The counter party agreed to it, after all.
* not lawyer, don't know what I'm talking about, etc