Help with a question about law?

Question

This is an assignment that i need help with. A preson goes to a restaurant and hands his imitation fur coat to the hat check lady. He is handed a ticket with his name and a description of the coat. On the reverse of the ticket it says "We will not be held responsible for any loss or damage of whatever nature or however cause". The restaurnat says they will not pay him anything and they are not liable.

What could the coat owner do legally.

Answer 1

The exclusion clause is vague enough to possibly exclude the restaurant from liability (see the Canada SS lines case). However tickets are generally deemed to not be contractual in nature. For instance, if something is so important to exclude someone from liability, it is unlikely that a ticket, which most people would only glance at, would be deemed sufficient notice. Unless the attendent actually drew the plaintiff's notice to the contractual terms on the ticket, or if there were also signs, the restaurant would most likely be liable. Cases to support this are the Thornton Shoe-Lane Parking (I think that's what its called - it's got a great quote by Lord Denning in it) and the Wedding Dress case (where a woman goes to a drycleaner to wash the wedding dress, signs the receipt which contained an exclusion clause, however she succesfully sued).

Sorry I can't remember the case names from the top of my head, but assuming you're a law student, these cases probably came up in class - they're fairly high profile.

Answer 2

He could sue. That doesn't mean he would win. It would be a matter of deciding whether they were actually liable, regardless of the notice, or whether the person had "Assumed the Risk" by giving his coat to attendant. However, it is more likely that he did NOT assume the risk given the circumstances of handing the coat over for a receipt, regardless of the disclaimer on the back. The JUDGE would make the liability determination, as a matter of law.

Answer 3

There is a certain amount of liability any business owner has. He has a responsibility to do "everything possible" to prevent theft or damage to a customers property. If they accepted the coat, they also accepted a certain amount of responsibility for it.

Answer 4

He could sue the restaraunt.

Claims like, "We are not liable," or, "We cannot be held responsible, please return carts here,"

are called "in terroram" statements -- and are sometimes not legally enforceable -- they are just there to scare people out of trying to make an issue out of the issue.

He could definitely sue. . . I don't know that he'd definitely win (was there REALLY a contract, if so, was in unilateral or bilateral. . . what was breached). . . ?