Exception Clause, which both parties previously appointed in the agreement aiming to limit or exempt from its future liability, has the positive value in distributing the burden and risk. However, the standard of Exception Clause makes the phenomenon worse because of abuse of Exception Clause to violate the counterpart’s legitimate right and interests, especially the consumer. The law regulates and controls Exception Clause and its essence is to coordinate and balance the contradiction and conflict between Contract Freedom Principal and prohibition of abuse of Exception Clause. Validity basis of Exception Clause stems from the law’s maintenance of social public interests and Contract Justice Principle’s Rectification towards Contract Freedom Principle. For the type of Exception Clause, it includes the standard clause of immunity from tort liability, the standard clause of immunity from breaching liability because of the intentional offense and gross negligence, and the standard clause of immunity from unfair and unreasonable terms toward the counterparts. Because of the difference of validity basis, then rule of effectiveness should be evaluated according to the different standard. Compared with developed countries and region’s rule of effectiveness about the Exception Clause, the 9th~10th article Judicial Interpretation  Document No. 5 have the deficiency, and they should refer to the relevant legislation and cases of developed countries and regions and international treaty and needs to further improved.