Eskwai logo
Verify now as a student, judge or newly called lawyer for access to discounted plans.

INUSAH v. D.H.L. WORLDWIDE EXPRESS

June 12, 1991

HIGH COURT

GHANA

CORAM

  • PIESARE J

Areas of Law

  • Contract Law
  • Commercial Law

AI Generated Summary

The plaintiff, a literate trained professional, used DHL in Accra to courier 22 American Express traveller’s cheques valued at US$6,000 to his account at National Westminster Bank, London. He paid 2, 10,000 and received airbill No. 282649 (exhibit D), which on its face disclaimed liability and limited DHL’s exposure to US$100; the reverse referenced for terms was blank. In August 1987, National Westminster Bank reported that only three cheques totaling US$1,150 were received per DHL bill No. 011375. Suing for a balance refund of US$4,111, damages, and interest, the plaintiff faced DHL’s defenses that a standard form (exhibit A) governed and its employee lacked authority. The court inferred acceptance from the parcel’s passage through DHL’s system, rejected the authority defense, held exhibit D was the binding contract, and applied LEstrange and Chitty to conclude the signed limitation clause controlled. Judgment was entered for US$100 with interest and costs.

JUDGMENT