Cool Fashion Clothing (CFC) Ltd operates a chain of retail stores throughout the metropolitan areas in Sydney. CFC has used Remi's Cartage for many years to transfer goods from one store to another. The agreed procedure is always the same. CFC telephones Remi and gives him the collection point and the destination. Remi picks up the goods. An employee of CFC and Remi fill in and sign a collection docket. CFC keeps the duplicate. Remi takes the goods directly to the drop-off point and has the docket countersigned by another employee of CFC. On the back of the collection docket, the following clause is written: Remi's Cartage does not accept any responsibility for any loss or damage to any goods carried and delivered however such loss or damage may arise to be caused whether by negligence or otherwise. At 12.30 PM on 10 July, Remi collects a quantity of expensive goods from one of CFC's shops. The usual procedure on collection is followed. The docket is filled in, signed and a duplicate is kept by CFC. As it is nearly lunch time, Remi decides to have lunch before delivering the goods. He goes a number of kilometres out of his way to collect a friend. Together, they then go to a restaurant which has a great buffet lunch. Remi parks on a steep hill. Unfortunately, Remi has not checked his brakes lately. They slip and the vehicle rolls down the hill, hitting a number of obstacles on the way. The goods belonging to CFC are totally destroyed. CFC demands that Remi must pay for the goods. Remi denies liability on the basis of the terms on the back of the collection docket. CFC maintains that this term has not been brought to CFC's attention. Advise CFC whether it can recover the value of the damaged goods from Remy. Fully explain your answer by stating the problem, issues, law and application