The defendants were furniture removers and warehousemen, and they entered into a contract to remove the plaintiff’s furniture from London to Hailsham. The contract was made subject to various conditions. The plaintiff’s goods were loaded on to the defendants’ motor lorry, and in the course of transfer a fire caused by the negligence of the defendants’ servants destroyed the bulk of the goods and damaged the remainder.
Held: Clause 11 In the contract did exempt the defendants from liability: ‘The contractors are not responsible for loss or damage caused by fire, aircraft or bombardment of property in transfer or in storage or in process of being packed.’ Sankey J said: ‘But just as a common carrier may exempt himself from liability by using express and unambiguous language, so also a carrier of the class with whom we are now dealing may exempt himself from liability by using proper words . . As far as this part of the discussion is concerned I think the familiar doctrine of law applies-namely, that if a man wishes to exempt himself from liability he must say so in clear and unambiguous terms.’
Citations:
[1926] 1 KB 50
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Disapproved – Hollier v Rambler Motors (AMC) Ltd CA 19-Nov-1971
The plaintiff left his car with the defendant garage for repair. Whilst there it was substantially damaged by fire. The defendant sought to rely upon their terms which would negative liability, saying that the terms had been incorporated by . .
Cited – Fagan v Green and Edwards Ltd 1926
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.566889