Facts: P a former business lawyer, went on vacation and took many pictures with Kodak
film. He took eighteen rolls of pictures during a European vacation and returned them to
D’s establishment (who was a subsidiary of Kodak) for processing. When purchased, the
film had a notice with it that stated if the film was damaged or lost as a result of “us” or
any “subsidiary company” for any reason, the film would be replaced. Though P never
read this notice, he knew there was a liability limitation clause on the product. When he
took the rolls to D for processing he was given a receipt for each that stated: If the rolls
are lost or damages during processing, they will be replaced but that there is no other
warranty or liability on the part of D or Kodak. Four rolls were lost in processing and P
filed suit. He sought damages of 10k and received from the trial court an amount of
$1,013.60.
Issue: Was the loss of the film a breach of bailment that requires D to replace the value of
P’s film as P valued it, or simply the value of unprocessed film as stipulated in the notices
and receipts?
Holding: Vacated and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of P in
amount of $13.60, plus interest.
Rationale:
– P claims there was an ambiguity in the wording of the clause in the receipt that
makes it impossible to determine to whom it applies. He also argues that there is
ambiguity in the statements “return” and “us.” P believes return should be
defined as the return of an item to a party that at some time in the past had
possession of the item and is now reacquiring possession. The court agrees with
this contention, return refers to returning film manufactured by Kodak for
processing
– Though there are precedents that have held exculpatory clauses void or
unconscionable this is not such a situation because P was an educated business
lawyer with knowledge. Nor was he in a “take it or leave it” position. He had
many options of developing the film, including developing it himself