Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LAW OF CONTRACT
FIRST DRAFT
Case Summaries:-
I. Alderslade v. Hendon Laundry Ltd.
Ten large handkerchiefs were lost by the laundry. It argued that its liability was limited by a clause
in the contract which read: ‘The maximum amount allowed for lost or damaged articles is twenty
times the charge made for laundering.’ That was 11s 5d, about one tenth of the cost of the
handkerchiefs at £5.
The judge held that the claim succeeded, and Hendon Laundry Ltd appealed.
The Court of Appeal of England and Wales held the limitation clause did apply, because although
negligence was not mentioned, the defendants could only have been liable for the handkerchiefs if
they had been negligent. A common carrier, for example, must make clear that negligence is
excluded, and if that is not done in clear terms, only liability for a strict duty will be excluded. But
here, the only other duty was the absolute, primary obligation to perform the contract itself.
2
II. Hardwick Game Farm v. Suffolk Agricultural Poultry Producers Association
Hardwick Game Farm (HGF) purchased compounded meals from Suffolk Agricultural Poultry
Producers Association (SAPPA) to feed their pheasants. Many of the birds died because the feed
contained toxins. SAPPA had purchased the supplies from two wholesalers under oral contracts.
Their normal course of dealing was evidenced by sales notes containing a clause stating the buyer
bore responsibility for latent defects. The wholesalers had purchased the supplies from two parties
on their standard terms, which purported to exclude liability for latent defects. HGF recovered
damages from SAPPA. SAPPA sought indemnity from their suppliers, who in turn sought indemnity
from theirs.
SAPPA recovered damages. Where goods are supplied for a particular purpose, the statutory
obligations apply and cannot be excluded in the contract. Membership of the same trade association
was insufficient to rebut the presumption that buyers may rely on the skill of sellers in warranting
goods are of merchantable quality. Although pheasants were not poultry for the purposes of the
1926 Act, the warranty still applied and damages were recoverable for harm suffered to pheasants.
3
responsible for any items lost or stolen, unless handed to them for safe keeping. Olley left the room
and deposited her key on the board in reception before leaving the hotel. The key was taken and
several items were stolen from her room. Olley sought damages in negligence.
Olley was successful in her claim and recovered the cost of the stolen items in their entirety. The
exclusion clause had not been successfully incorporated into the contract because the contract was
concluded at reception, and the notice purporting to exclude liability was not visible until after the
contract was formed, when the guest entered the bedroom.
4
stating the owners would not be liable for any injuries occurring on their premises. Thornton had an
accident and sought damages from Shoe Lane Parking (SLP).
The exclusion clause had not been successfully incorporated into the contract. SLP had not done
enough to bring the existence of the terms to Thornton’s attention prior to the contract formation.
The offer was contained within the notice at the entrance, and Thornton accepted the offer on those
terms when he drove in. It was too late to seek to incorporate further terms after he had driven in to
the car park.