Hollier v Rambler Motors (AMC) Ltd [1972] 2 QB 71
Car damaged by fire caused by garage’s negligence; effect of exclusion clause
Facts
Hollier had his car repaired by the defendant garage three or four times over a period of five years. On at least two of these occasions he had signed a form which stated the garage were exempted from liability for damage caused by fire on their premises. Hollier had not read the form. On this occasion there was an oral agreement for the repairs to be conducted, and Hollier had not signed a form. His car was damaged by fire and Hollier claimed in negligence.
Issues
Hollier claimed the garage had been negligent and in breach of the implied term that they would take reasonable care of his car. He also contended the garage could not rely on the exclusion clause because it could not be imported from previous written contracts into the oral contract made between himself and the garage. The garage sought to rely on the exemption clause on the basis that the term had been imported into the oral contract by virtue of the parties’ previous course of dealing. They argued three or four occasions within five years was sufficient to amount to a course of dealing such that the terms of the previous contract would be imported into the oral one, and, therefore they were exempted from liability.
Decision/Outcome
Hollier was successful in his claim. Three or four occasions in five years was insufficient to amount to a course of dealing and the exclusion clause had not, therefore, been imported into the oral contract. Even if the clause had been so imported, the language used was not so plain as to clearly exclude the garage from liability for its own negligence.
Updated 19 March 2026
This article accurately describes the decision in Hollier v Rambler Motors (AMC) Ltd [1972] 2 QB 71. The case remains good law and continues to be cited as a leading authority on two distinct points: first, that a limited number of previous transactions (here, three or four over five years) will not ordinarily suffice to establish a course of dealing capable of importing exclusion clauses into a subsequent oral contract; and second, that clear and unambiguous language is required before a court will construe an exclusion clause as covering a party’s own negligence. Both principles remain applicable under current English contract law. Readers should note that the broader statutory framework governing exclusion clauses has developed significantly since 1972. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 now governs the reasonableness and enforceability of many exclusion clauses in business-to-consumer and business-to-business contracts, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 replaced much of the 1977 Act’s consumer-facing provisions with a stronger regime protecting consumers against unfair terms. These statutory controls sit alongside the common law principles illustrated in this case. The article does not address this statutory context, which students should bear in mind when applying the case to modern problems.
