10.4.6.2 Notes - Klar v. H. & M. Parcel Room, Inc. | Kessler, Gilmore & Kronman | September 27, 2012

H2O

10.4.6.2 Notes - Klar v. H. & M. Parcel Room, Inc.

NOTE

1. Does this case turn upon the same issue as the one involved in McCarthy v. Tally and Better Foods Markets v. American District Telegraph Co.? Suppose the plaintiff's agent testified that he had, in fact, read the parcel check Would that affect your view of how the case should be decided?

2. A laundry and cleaning establishment unable to return a suit, when sued by the owner in damages, claims that its liability is limited by a clause in the contract which provides that "the maximum amount allowed for lost or damaged articles is twenty times the charge made for cleaning." Assuming it is to be established that the business is carried on in a negligent manner, will the clause limit liability effectively? See Alderslade v. Hendon Laundry, Ltd., 61 T.L.R. 216 (1945), noted in 61 L.Q. Rev. 115 (1945). Suppose the ticket contains the following additional clause: "Whilst every care is exercised in cleaning and dyeing garments, all orders are accepted at owner's risk entirely." Suppose, also, that this time the article of clothing is lost in some unknown way by a sub-contractor. See Davies v. Collins, 61 T.L.R. 218 (1945). When a customer has previous notice of a limitations clause because of earlier negotiations with the laundry owner regarding lost clothes, will the clause be enforced? Manhattan Co. v. Goldberg, D.C. Mun. App., 38 A.2d 172 (1944). When the customer's only notice of a limitation clause is its appearance on a blank receipt, the clause has been held ineffective. Palace Laundry Dry Cleaning Co. v. Cole, D.C. Mun, App., 41 A.2d 231 (1945). The American cases are collected in 175 A.L.R. 12.

Close

Text Information

May 21, 2013

Author Stats

Kessler, Gilmore & Kronman

Expand
Leitura Garamond Futura Verdana Proxima Nova Dagny Web
small medium large extra-large