Sauti Cleaners Ltd. offered to clean two garments for the price of one. A notice was displayed in the shop to this effect but with the...

      

Sauti Cleaners Ltd. offered to clean two garments for the price of one. A notice was
displayed in the shop to this effect but with the addition in smaller print of a statement
that he customer must agree in return to accept full responsibility if anything should
happen to the garments.
A similar statement was printed on the back of the tickets which were handed to
customers when they disposed the garments. Nabayi bought two garments fro cleaning.
Because of poor eye sight. She was unable to read the small print on the notice and she
put the ticket in her pocket without reading.
Some days later when Nabayi went to collect the garments, she saw that one garment
had been badly torn. After wearing the other garment, she contracted a skin disease
caused by a chemical which the cleaners had used.
Advise Nabayi.

  

Answers


Raphael
- This problem is based on exemption or exclusion clauses contracts.
- In this case it is clear that the transaction between Sauti Cleaners Ltd and Nabayi
contained an exemption clause.
- It is also apparent that by reason of her poor eye sight Nabayi did not read the notice on the wall or on the back of the ticket given by Sauti Cleaners Ltd. and hence was not
aware of the exemption clause.
- The first question for determination is whether the exemption clause was an integral part the contract between Sauti Cleaners Ltd and Nabayi. The answer to this question is in the affirmative. It therefore follows that Nabayi is bound by the clause as thecompany had done enough to bring the same to her notice. She cannot therefore sue the company for the garments. However, she contracted a skin disease by reason of the chemical used by the cleaner.
- My advise to Nabayi is that she has no claim against the company for the garment as the
company had effectively exempted itself from liability for such damage and she was
bound by the ? exemption clause.?
- This advice is consistent with the decision in L?Estrange V. Graucob (1934).
- With regard to the skin disease my advise is that she has an action against Sauti Cleaners
Ltd in damages for the suffering. This is because chemicals used by dry cleaning companies must not be harmful to the users of clothing after cleaning.
raphael answered the question on April 18, 2018 at 12:04


Next: State what would happen if auditory nerve was completely damaged
Previous: State the importance of support systems in living organisms

View More CPA Commercial Law Questions and Answers | Return to Questions Index


Exams With Marking Schemes

Related Questions