Hollier v Ramber Motors [1972] 2 QB 71

• Plaintiff left his car with Defendant to be repaired 4 times in 5 years and on the first three occasions had been asked to sign an invoice excluding Defendant from liability. On the 4th time he was not asked to and his car was destroyed in a fire at Defendant’s garage.

• Defendant tried to rely on the fact that in their previous dealings Plaintiff had signed the exclusion clauses.

• CA allowed Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that the dealings between Defendant and Plaintiff 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. 

RELATED CASES

• McCutcheon v MacBrayne

• British Crane Hire v Ipswich Plant Hire