The Court of Appeal upheld the trial decision and confirmed that the disconfidence clause was an exclusion clause in Section 3. The approach taken by the court was very simple: would the owner have been held because of misrepresentation under the Law on Misrepresentation, but for the clause? The answer was yes. At first glance, therefore, the clause worked to exclude liability and there was no evidence to suggest anything else. The fact that the clause functioned as a contractual Estoppel (which prevents the tenant from arguing that a representation took place because the tenant had accepted that nothing was considered a representation said by the landlord) does not change the difference. Section 3 was used. The adequacy assessment was therefore applied. The owner had argued that the clause was appropriate, given that the parties were legally represented, had the same bargaining power and the parties did not have contracts on the landlord`s standard terms. The judge accepted these facts but did not find them conclusive. The judge recognized the importance of a pre-contract investigation in the area of promotion by declaring the clause inappropriate; If the owner has the right to exclude liability for these insurances, the important function of responding to pre-contract requests would become worthless. The Court of Appeal upheld its decision.