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 for cleaning.
• 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 reason of her poor eye sight Nabayi did not read the notice on the wall or on the back of the ticket given 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 the clause as the company 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 reason of the chemical used 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 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 dry cleaning companies must not be harmful to the users of clothing after cleaning.