Are the Conditions Set Forth on the Reverse of a Receipt Enforceable ?
In Deutsch v. Long Island Carpet Cleaning Co., Inc., 5 Misc. 2d 684, 158 N.Y.S.2d 876 (A.T. 1st Dep't 1956), the court held that conditions set forth on the reverse side of a receipt given to the plaintiff customer of the defendant carpet-cleaning company (and on the reverse side of a subsequent written confirmation) were unenforceable for, inter alia, lack of evidence that the plaintiff had been effectively made aware of those conditions:
The evidence elicited was insufficient as a matter of law to establish this receipt as an agreement binding the customer to the various conditions on the reverse side.
It failed to meet the essential test of showing that these conditions, particularly the clause limiting the company's liability for negligence and this arbitration clause, had been brought to the attention of the customer. 158 N.Y.S. at 877.
In Conboy v. Studio 54, Inc., 113 Misc.2d 403, 449 N.Y.S.2d (Civ. Ct. N.Y. Co. 1982), the court refused to give effect to a limitation of liability stated on a sign posted in the coat room operated by the defendant, explaining that the posting of the sign [is not] a useless act, for it may still function as a common law disclaimer. to bind Conboy to this limitation, I must find[,] however[,] that he had notice of the terms of the disclaimer and agreed to it.
Studio  did not establish that the sign was posted in a conspicuous manner.
The Court held that Conboy is not bound by the posted disclaimer of liability. 449 N.Y.S. 2d at 394.