He had been to this garage on three or four occasions in the past five years before, and he had usually signed an invoice which said the "company is not responsible for damage caused by fire to customers’ cars on the premises."

Salmon LJ observed the following: No doubt merchants, tradesmen, garage proprietors and the like are a little shy of writing in an exclusion clause quite so bluntly... Clearly it would not tend to attract customers, and might even put many off… in order for the clause to be effective the language should be so plain that it clearly bears that meaning.

I do not think that defendants should be allowed to shelter behind language which might lull the customer into a false sense of security…He refers to Scrutton LJ in Rutter v Palmer [1922] 2 KB 87 saying a clear clause excluding negligence liability "will more readily operate to exempt him."

Also, in Alderslade v Hendon Laundry Ltd [1945] KB 189, Lord Greene MR was not seeking to extend the law, and here was quite different, because the reasonable person would see a number of other causes of fire.

The court also held that "a customer could understand the clause to mean that the defendants were not liable for a fire caused without their negligence.