Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Hollier v Ramber Motors

[1972] 2 QB 71

Case summary last updated at 01/01/2020 18:45 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Hollier v Ramber Motors

P left his car with D to be repaired 4 times in 5 years and on the first three occasions had been asked to sign an invoice excluding D from liability. On the 4th time he was not asked to and his car was destroyed in a fire at D’s garage. D tried to rely on the fact that in their previous dealings P had signed the exclusion clauses. CA allowed P’s claim on the grounds that the dealings between D and P were not frequent enough to constitute a course of dealing. 

 Salmon LJ: Knowledge is needed of the clause to import it into the main contract + in McCutcheon the dealings were too infrequent to constitute a course of dealing, then certainly there is no course here, where it is even less frequent. 

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Contract Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious academic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Contract Law Notes

Contract Law Notes >>