(a) That's wrong. The first answer (a) is not a good answer because it fails to take into account important differences between the facts of Causer v Browne and the present case. Most significant is the fact that in Browne's case, the court held that the document on which the limitation of liability clause appeared was not obviously a document which could be expected to contain contractual terms, and accordingly the receipt of that document did not lead to the inference that Browne was agreeing to any terms it might contain, whether he read them or not.

In the current case, the document that Miles signs is known to be a contract, and it obviously contains terms. By signing that contract, Miles appears to give his assent to the terms it contains, whether he reads them or not. This would certainly be so in the absence of other significant facts, for example, if the term in question was very unusual and should have been specifically pointed out, but this is not the case here. The situation is very like that in L'Estrange v Graucob Ltd.

Before choosing answer (b), what about answer (c)? Assuming the limitation clause has become part of the contract, do the facts suggest that its effect might be avoided by interpreting it narrowly, against Peter's interests? This is unlikely because there seems to be no interpretation issue, either as to the meaning of the clause, or as to its application to a situation of actual breach of contract.

The conclusion is that (c) is not a good answer, which leaves (b) as the best choice.