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.