Question:
Dan took his dinner suit and his wife's silk dress to the Toff Dry Cleaners, a firm his family used whenever they had dry cleaning to be done.
He was handed a docket and as usual he placed it in his wallet without reading it. When Dan called to collect the clothing he was told that his dinner suit was missing and his wife's silk dress was badly stained. No explanation was given about the stained dress. However, one of the assistants recalled handing the dinner suit to a customer who had apparently lost his docket but was able to identify the dinner suit when allowed to sort through the rack of dry cleaned clothing awaiting collection by customers. Dan demanded compensation but the owner of Toff Dry Cleaners referred Dan to a clause on the docket which read: "We will not be liable for any loss or damage to clothing left for cleaning". The owner also pointed to a sign at the back of the shop which had been displayed there for some time. The sign said: "We take all care in the dry cleaning of our customers' clothing but we regret we cannot take any responsibility for loss or damage however caused". Dan protested that he had never read the sign or the docket.
1. Advise Dan whether he is entitled to compensation from Toff Dry Cleaners.
2. Would it make any difference if Dan had noticed the clause on the docket and the assistant had said: "That excludes liability for damage to buttons and zippers"
3. ASSUME that Dan is entitled to compensation for the loss of his dinner suit and the stained silk dress.
He now tells you that because of what has happened his wife has suffered emotional distress because the dress was a family heirloom. He also tells you that he and his wife had to hire, at considerable expense, a dinner suit and a dress for a formal occasion because of the loss and damage.
You are required to support your answer by reference to relevant legal authority.