Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Morris v Martin

[1965] 2 All ER 725

Case summary last updated at 03/01/2020 18:36 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Morris v Martin

P (bailor) contracted X (bailee) to clean her mink coat. X sub contracted the work, with P’s consent, to D (sub bailee) who, by carelessness, let the coat be stolen. There were exemption clauses in the contract between X and D but not between P 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 P consents to sub bailment, they are impliedly consenting to the bailee making a contract under the “usual terms of the trade” and P will be bound by them. Thus if the exemption clauses had covered this type of scenario, D could have relied on them against P (per lord Denning). 

Morris v Martin crops up in following areas of law