Sam took her handbag to Leather Healer Ltd ("LH Ltd"), a company that specialize in leather repair. Tom, the sales assistant did not inform Sam of the Terms and Conditionsdisplayedon the wall, nor did she notice the terms as Sam did not have her glasses with her. Sam was asked to sign a receipt and she was toldby Tom thatLH Ltd would not accept liability for certain risks, including scratches to buckles anddamage tozips. Sam signed the receiptwithout reading. In fact, the receipt included the following condition:

"Goodsacceptedfor repairon the condition that the company [LH LTD]willnot liable for any damage however arising or for any delay caused".

Samalsowanted to buy aleather cleaning kit from the shop. She heard that there isa good leather cleaning kit manufactured by a company fromSpain and asked Tom for it.Tom said the shop did not have such product, but hecan sell it to her in his own capacityas he bought severalsets ofcleaning kit when he went to Spain for his holiday (This is not true. Tomnever wentto Spain and the cleaning kit isactually manufacturedin Cambodia). He offered the kit to her at $399, which is the price for the leather cleaning kit if it ismanufacturedby the companyin Spain.Tom informed Sam thatthecleaning kit isMade in Spain(you can assume the terms were all statedclearly),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,thesolution damaged her shoes as it contained a corrosive ingredient which is not suitable for cleaning leather.

A week later, the handbag was returned with a stainon it. The stainwas not therewhen she droppedit off atLH Ltd.LH Ltd sought to rely on the exclusion clauseonthe receipt.

AdviseSamas to her rights against Tom and LH Ltd.