it is to operate must be given reasonable notice of its existence. Whether such notice has been given is determined according to the following principles: “ (1) If the party against whom the clause operates has actual knowledge of the clause at the time when the contract is concluded he is inevitably bound by it. (2) When there is no actual knowledge, the party against, the clause operates will not be bound if he has no reason to believe that the document containing the clause contained contractual terms. (3) If the party against whom the close operates has reason to believe that a document given to him contents contractual terms it may be borne by those terms, including any exclusion clause, even though he does not choose to read the document; if the document contains what is reasonably necessary to bring the terms to the attention of the reader, the recipient will be bound but he will not be bound if he does not do so.” In the case of Atlantic Shipping and Trading Company Limited v Louis Dreyfus and Company [1922] AC 250, the requirement that an exemption clause must clearly state what is exempted was followed. It was held that un-seaworthiness was no where mentioned, nor is liability for consequences of it excepted under any term. In this case the question is whether liability for loss through robbery as alleged was expressly excluded premised on the email communication that the cargo was transported at owner’s risk. Any ambiguity is to be construed in favour of the party against whom it is to operate and general words of limitation will not usually be construed so as to cover serious or fundamental breaches going to the root of the contract. General words will have no application to liability for negligence, but will prima facie be construed as to protect the defendant from a strict form of liability (i.e. on warranty) In the case of White v John Warwick Ltd (1953) 2 ALL ER 1021 the exemption clause relied on provided that “Nothing in this agreement shall render the owners liable for any personal injuries to the riders of the machines hired nor for any thirdparty claims, nor loss of any goods, belonging to the hirer, in the machines.” When the plaintiff was injured while riding the bike as a result of failure to maintain the machine in good condition and a defect in the bike, Singleton LJ said at 1025: 26