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

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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal