Edwards could not have queried the university. As indicated with the instance of the Mp3 player, exception may exist.
Given the above, we have shown how the university has a reasonable claim.
Secondly, there are also specific guidelines regarding how the definition of 'reasonableness' can be defined. .
The reasonableness test is the following:
• the term is required to be a fair and reasonable one so that one can include in the contract.
• Both parties involved judge that this is the case and they are aware of all pertinent circumstances
• the fairness and reasonableness is decided at the time that the contract is entered into not with hindsight after a certain instance has occurred
• the resources of the party have to be taken into consideration as well as the recourse of the party to insurance
• the burden is on the party seeking to enforce liability to show that their terms are fair and reasonable.
In regards to this case:
The term is a fair and reasonable one. A student destroys an object belonging to the university; he or she is liable to replace it
• Ms. Edwards signed the contract therefore she consented to the clause
• Both parties decided and affirmed fairness and reasonableness of clause at the time that the contract was signed.
• Ms. Edwards had plenty of time to find insurance for herself. Given that she did not debate the clause at time of signing, she obviously considered herself to possess the necessary resources necessary for liability
• the University agrees that the burden is on itself to show that their terms are fair and reasonable.
To that end it will draw on the following precedent to support its case:
Photo Production v Securicor 
Photo Production v Securicor  AC 827 House of Lords was the case where the claimant (Photo Production) had signed a contract for provision of security services at Securicor. The security guard's negligence caused fire to break out and consequent destruction at the claimant's factory. Securicor was, however, unwilling to pay since the contract had contained a clause discounting Securicor from destruction caused by negligence of workers. Claimant was well-aware of this clause at the time of signing. The issue was now between the two parties. Both had to deal with it, and the court declined to interfere. To reiterate: the court's decision was that "Where the parties are negotiating at arm's length, and have set out who should bear the risks, the courts should be unwilling to interfere." (e-lawresources.co.uk Photo Production v Securicor http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Photo-Production-v-Securicor.php)
We have a similar case here. Ms. Edwards was aware of the conditions at the time of signing the contract.
The parties should therefore negotiate between themselves if and when destruction to property does occur.
The courts should not interfere.
In short, Ms. Edwards is responsible for acceding to the university's requirements since she was aware of these requirements at the time of signing the contract. More so, Ms. Edwards had time to arrange for herself instance, could have queried into possible exceptions for clause as well as for delineation of terms had she been not clear regarding their construct, extension, or meaning. More so, it is not as though Ms. Edwards was constrained to sign the contract. She could have selected another university to attend or debated contract before signing. Ms. Edwards was aware of the implications at the time of signing. She consented by signing. She now has to agree to abide by the consequences. The reasonableness of the Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA) of 1977 stands. Ms. Edwards may well claim that she is not liable for damages under the definitions of s.2(2) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA) of 1977 . The precedent of the Photo Production v Securicor  case indicates that the argument should be arbitrated between the two parties rather than within the auspices of the court.
e-lawresources.co.uk Smith v Eric Bush  1 AC 831