Sam took her handbag to Leather Healer Ltd ("LH Ltd"), a company that specialize in leatherrepair.Tom,thesalesassistantdidnotinformSamoftheTermsand Conditions displayedon the wall, nor did she notice the terms as Sam did not have her glasseswithher.Samwasaskedtosignareceiptandshewastold byTomthat LH Ltdwouldnotacceptliabilityforcertainrisks,includingscratchestobucklesand damageto zips.Samsignedthereceipt withoutreading.Infact,thereceiptincluded the following condition:"Goods are accepted for repair on the condition that the company [LH LTD] willnot liable for any damage however arising or for any delay caused".Sam also wanted to buy aleather cleaning kit from the shop. She heard that there is a good leather cleaning kit manufactured by a company fromSpain and asked Tom for it.Tomsaidtheshopdidnothavesuchproduct,buthe cansellittoherinhisown capacityasheboughtseveralcleaningkitswhenhewenttoSpainforhisholiday (Thisisnottrue.TomneverwenttoSpainandthecleaningkitisactuallyMadein Cambodia).Heofferedthekittoherat$399,whichisthepricefortheleather cleaning kit if it is manufactured in Spain.Tom informed Sam thatthecleaning kit is Made in Spain(you can assume the terms were all stated clearly),and Samaccepted his offer. Sampaid $399 in return for the cleaning kit and went home. When she got home and tried to use the cleaning kit for her leather shoes, the solution damagedhershoesasitcontainedacorrosiveingredientwhichisnotsuitablefor cleaning leather.Aweeklater,thehandbagwasreturnedwithastain onit.Thestainwasnotthere when she dropped it off at LH Ltd.LH Ltd sought to rely on the exclusion clause on the receipt.

Advise Samas to her rights against Tom and LH Ltd.