Facts: Curtis wanted a dress cleaned by the defendant. Curtis was asked to sign a “receipt” and was told that the “receipt” excluded liability for damage to the dresses beads/sequins. Curtis signed “receipt” but it was later discovered the “receipt” excluded liability for all damages

Held: The Court of Appeal held that the exclusion clause had no effect

Facts: The claimant bought a broken cigarette machine. The claimant had signed the contract which said on it (albeit in tiny writing at the bottom of the page) liability would be excluded for a broken machine.

Held: The exclusion clause was effective because of L’Estrange’s signature. Some people argue that the outcome of this case was unfair

Facts: The parties have had previous dealings. The appellant contracted to have a car shipped somewhere by a ferry company. The appellant was given a receipt for the contract. The ferry later sunk, so he tried to get damages. The ferry company tried to argue there was an exclusion clause for this on the receipt and the walls of the ferry company office. In earlier dealings a “risk note” had been signed by the appellant bringing the exclusion clause to appellant’s attention – this time there was no such “risk note”.

Held: No exclusion clause incorporated because there was not a consistency with previous dealings

Facts: A couple contracted for a holiday at a reception desk. A notice on the back of their hotel room door said the hotel was not responsible for any goods lost or stolen. Negligence by the hotel led to someone entering and stealing from their room

Held: The Court of Appeal said that the exclusion clause was not part of the contract so the defendants could not rely on it

Facts: The claimant left luggage at the defendant's cloakroom. The defendant gave a ticket to the claimant which on the back said the defendant had no liability for lost/stolen goods over £10 (this was also said in the cloakroom). The claimant’s luggage was lost/stolen and the claimant tried to recover the loss.

Held: The Court of Appeal said the the defendant had to have made reasonable steps to ensure the other party knew the exclusion clause existed

⇒ So:

• i) Reasonable notice must be given about the existence of the clause
• ii) Reasonable notice must be given before/at the time the contract is made (not after)

Facts: The defendant used the services of a warehouse to store goods on a regular basis. Each time he delivered goods to the warehouse he was asked to sign an invoice which contained an exclusion clause. This invoice came after the contract had been agreed. On one occasion he stored some barrels of orange juice and again signed the invoice. When he went to pick them up, however, some of the barrels were empty and one contained dirty water. Consequently he refused to pay for the storage. The claimant warehouse owners brought an action for the agreed price of storage relying on the exclusion clause to demonstrate that they were not liable for the damage to the goods. The defendant argued the clause had not been incorporated into the contract as he signed the document after the contract was made.

Held: The clause was incorporated through previous dealings. The defendant would have been aware of the term from the previous contracts and therefore it did form part of the contract. The claimant was entitled to payment and the defendant had no right to claim compensation for the damage to the orange juice.

Facts: The claimant hurt themself getting off a train. Terms on the train platform excluded liability for personal injury and the train ticket also referred the purchaser to these terms on the platform. The claimant was illiterate and could not read the exclusion clause, so she argued that it was not brought to her attention

Held: Railway had made reasonable steps so the claimant was unsuccessful