## Facts

- Ashdown engaged Samuel Williams, a transport company, to move goods.
- The contract included a notice seeking to exclude the company’s liability for negligence.
- Goods were damaged during transit.
- Ashdown sued for breach of contract, contesting the validity of the exclusion clause.
- The notice allegedly limiting liability was not prominently displayed or expressly brought to Ashdown’s attention before or at the time of contracting.

## Issues

1. Whether the exclusion notice effectively excluded liability for negligence.
2. Whether the exclusion clause was sufficiently communicated to Ashdown and met the legal requirements for enforceability.
3. Whether the language of the clause was clear and unambiguous.
4. Whether the exclusion clause was reasonable and in accordance with public policy.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that the exclusion notice failed to effectively exclude liability for negligence.
- It ruled that the notice was not sufficiently prominent or clear to be enforceable.
- The clause was found ambiguous and did not clearly exclude liability for negligence.
- The court found no evidence that Ashdown was made aware of or had consented to the exclusion clause before entering the contract.
- The clause was deemed unreasonable, particularly as it attempted to exclude liability for negligence, which is generally not permitted unless clearly communicated and reasonable.

## Legal Principles

- Exclusion clauses must be clearly and unambiguously brought to the attention of the other party before or at the time of contracting.
- The doctrine of notice requires prominent and effective communication of terms limiting liability.
- Under the contra proferentem rule, any ambiguity in exclusion clauses is construed against the party relying on them.
- Mutual assent to contractual terms, including exclusion clauses, is essential for enforceability.
- Exclusion clauses must not be unreasonable or contrary to public policy, especially regarding negligence.

## Conclusion

Ashdown v Samuel Williams reaffirmed that exclusion clauses are only enforceable when communicated with sufficient clarity and prominence, with explicit consent from the affected party, and provided they are reasonable and not contrary to public policy, particularly in cases involving negligence.


Ashdown v Samuel Williams [1957] 1 All ER 35 (CA)