Sarah works for a company that has offered a promotion if she was willing to relocate.Sarah accepted the position and put her house on the market right away.She sold her house the first day that the realtor held an open house.The buyer agreed to pay cash for the full purchase price of the house.Sarah was thrilled,except that it meant that she would have to put her furniture in storage until she found another house in her new city.She entered into a written contract with Safe Storage,Inc.The agreement included a clause excusing Safe Storage,Inc.from any liability for loss or damage,even if the loss or damage resulted from Safe Storage's negligent acts.Because of Self Storage's negligence,a fire destroyed the warehouse and all of its contents,including Sarah's household goods and furniture.Sarah claims that Safe Storage,Inc.is liable for the full value of the contents,which is approximately $10,000.Is Sarah correct?
A)Yes, because storage warehouses are strictly liable for loss or damage, regardless of fault and regardless of exculpatory clauses.
B)No, because there was equal bargaining power between Sarah and Safe Storage, Inc.
C)Yes, because exculpatory clauses are illegal and never enforceable.
D)Probably, because often a court will reject an exculpatory clause against a bailor who is a consumer.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The most likely scenario is that Sarah's claim against Safe Storage, Inc. will be upheld, as courts often reject exculpatory clauses against consumers (people who are hiring storage facilities rather than using them for business purposes). While exculpatory clauses themselves are not necessarily illegal, they are often unenforceable in cases where there is unequal bargaining power between the parties involved. It is important to note that storage warehouses are not strictly liable for loss or damage, and equal bargaining power is not necessarily a determining factor in the enforceability of an exculpatory clause.

Sarah Works for a Company That Has Offered a Promotion