Morris v Martin [1965] 2 All ER 725
Judgement for the case Morris v Martin
Table Of Contents
Plaintiff (bailor) contracted X (bailee) to clean her mink coat.
X sub contracted the work, with Plaintiff’s consent, to Defendant (sub bailee) who, by carelessness, let the coat be stolen. There were exemption clauses in the contract between X and Defendant but not between Plaintiff and X.
CA held that on the facts of this case the exemption clauses offered no defence (they did not cover this type of good), but as a general rule, where Plaintiff consents to sub bailment, they are impliedly consenting to the bailee making a contract under the “usual terms of the trade” and Plaintiff will be bound by them.
Thus if the exemption clauses had covered this type of scenario, Defendant could have relied on them against Plaintiff (per lord Denning).
For Further Study on Morris v Martin
Contract law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
| Contract Law | Privity Notes (43 pages) |
Contract law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.