 The courts' attitude, well illustrated in "Wells v SA Alumenite", is to interpret them very strictly.If the clause is clear and unambiguous in its meaning, the courts give it that meaning.In "Durban's Water Wonderland v Botha", where the respondent and her child sustained injuries when they were thrown off a malfunctioning jet ride at an amusement park, the court found that the exemption clause clearly covered any liability based on negligence related to the ride's design or manufacture.