Bailment; deposit of goods for cleaning; liability of bailee; unsuccessful attempt to include express terms.
Facts: Causer took his wife's dress to Browne for dry cleaning. When he gave the dress to Browne, Causer was handed a 'docket' on which the following statement was printed: 'No responsibility is accepted for loss or injury to articles through any cause whatsoever'. Causer did not read what was written on the docket and the statement was not specifically drawn to his attention. During dry cleaning the dress was stained. Causer claimed damages from Browne to compensate for the ruined dress. As a bailee of goods deposited for cleaning, Browne would normally be liable for damage caused to the goods. However, Browne defended the claim, relying on the statement printed on the docket that expressly excluded his liability.
Issue: Had the statement on the docket that excluded Browne's liability become a term of the contract?
Decision: In the circumstances, the statement had not become a term of the contract.
Reason: The document handed to Causer did not appear to be a contractual document, or a document that was likely to contain contractual terms. It was reasonable in the circumstances for Causer to assume that the document was only an identifying docket which he would have to produce to collect the goods after cleaning. It could not be inferred, therefore, that Causer was agreeing to exempt Browne from liability for negligence. The result would have been different if Causer's attention had been drawn to the fact that the docket contained contractual terms.