Question -

James runs a small transport business in Melbourne. One of his best customers is XYZ Ltd, which operates a chain of retail stores throughout the Melbourne CBD. XYZ uses James to transfer goods from one store to another as required. The agreed procedure is always the same and is as follows. XYZ telephones James to give him the collection point and the destination. James picks up the goods. James and an employee of XYZ complete and sign a collection docket. XYZ keeps a copy of the docket. James takes the goods directly to the drop off point and has the docket countersigned by another employee of XYZ. One day, James collects a quantity of expensive goods from one of XYZ's shops. The usual procedure on collection is followed. A collection docket is filled in and signed, and a copy of the docket is kept by XYZ. The following terms are set out at the back of the docket: This receipt is an acknowledgement that the relevant goods were delivered to James in reasonable condition. James will use his best endeavours to ensure that the goods in question are delivered safely. James is not liable for any loss of or damage to any goods carried under this contract regardless of how such loss or damage may arise. As it is nearly lunch time, James decides to have lunch before delivering the goods. He goes a number of kilometres out of his way to pick up a friend. Together, they then proceed to a hotel which has a great counter lunch. James parks on a steep hill. Unfortunately, James has not recently checked the brakes on the vehicle that he uses. The brakes fail and the vehicle races down the hill, smashing into a number of obstacles along the way. The goods that belong to XYZ are totally destroyed. XYZ maintains that James must pay for the damage to the goods. James denies any liability.

Answer the following questions

2. Does the existence of the docket change your answer in 1, above? Why or why not?