Hollier v Rambler Motors (AMC) Ltd [1972] 2 QB 71

C had his car repaired at D’s garage on three or four occasioned over a period of five years. By oral agreement made between C and D, D agreed to repair his car. Whilst at the premises, the car was damaged by a fire caused by D’s negligence. C claimed for damages for the breach of the implied term that D would take reasonable care of his car. D relied on the condition excluding responsibility for the damage to cars caused by fire which they contented was incorporated into the oral agreement because of the previous course of dealings with the parties. The judge at first instance held that the condition was incorporated into the contract and excluded D’s liability for negligence and dismissed the claim. C appealed

Was the garage’s written fire-damage exclusion incorporated into the later oral repair contract through the parties’ previous dealings, and did its wording cover the garage’s own negligence?

The Court of Appeal allowed the customer's appeal. Three or four repair transactions over several years did not establish a sufficiently regular course of dealing to incorporate the written condition into the later oral contract. In addition, the wording about fire damage did not clearly communicate exclusion of liability for the garage's own negligence. The garage therefore could not rely on the clause to defeat the claim. These were separate grounds: whether a term became part of the contract, and what that term meant if incorporated. Modern statutory controls would add a further question where applicable, but were not the basis of this historical decision.

A sparse course of previous dealings may be insufficient to incorporate an exclusion into a later contract. Incorporation and interpretation are distinct: even an incorporated fire-damage clause must be construed to determine whether it covers the garage's own negligence.

Hollier is primarily a contract authority and has been placed under the relevant incorporation and exclusion topics. It demonstrates why a trader cannot rely on an occasional old form as if it governed every future oral arrangement. The judgment also scrutinised the clause's meaning. Modern cases require applicable consumer or unfair-terms legislation to be considered separately, so this decision should not be presented as the entire current legal test for garage disclaimers.