Firth contracted with Dave the Mover Inc. to have her furniture and household effects moved from her house, stored for a week (until she moved into her new home), and then delivered to the new home. Firth told Dave's manager that she was particularly concerned about security, since the effects included some rare and valuable antiques and artifacts. She was told there was nothing to worry about. The articles would remain in the trailer until delivery at her new home, and the trailer would be locked at all times and parked in their yard, which was securely fenced, locked at night, and kept under regular supervision.

The trailer was kept in the yard as promised for several days, but one night, after a heavy snowfall, it was moved and parked, unattended, on a public street while the yard was being plowed. While it was parked on the street, the trailer was stolen.

Firth claimed damages for the full value of the goods lost. Dave's admitted liability but pointed out that the bill of lading limited damages to $0.60 per pound weight of the goods, which came to just over $7000, a small fraction of their true value.

Firth admitted she was aware of the limitation when she entered into the contract but claimed she only agreed to it because of the assurance that the trailer would be properly supervised at all times.

Should Dave's be allowed to rely on the limitation clause?