What meant LJ Denning by &quot;ample content can be given to the notice&quot;?
<p><a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/OSullivan-Hilliards-Law-Contract-Janet/dp/0198807821/ref=dp_ob_title_bk" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>O'Sullivan &amp; Hilliard's The Law of Contract</em></a> (2018 8 ed). p. 200.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/CY3iQ.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/CY3iQ.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://docdro.id/9Mk7TkX" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Click here to download judgment</a>. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olley_v_Marlborough_Court_Ltd" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia</a> quotes the germane para.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In cases where it is clearly a common inn or, indeed, where it is uncertain whether it is a common inn or a private hotel, I am of opinion that  <strong>[2.] a notice in these terms would not exempt the hotel company from liability for negligence but only from any liability as insurers</strong>. Indeed, even if it were clearly not a common inn but only a private hotel, I should be of the same opinion. <strong>[1. Red] Ample content can be given to the notice</strong> by construing it as a warning that the hotel company is not liable, in the absence of negligence. As such it serves a useful purpose. It is a warning to the guest that he must do his part to take care of his things himself, and, if need be, insure them. <strong>[3. Green] It is unnecessary to go further</strong> and to construe the notice as a contractual exemption of the hotel company from their common law liability for negligence. I agree that the appeal should be dismissed. </p>
</blockquote>

<ol>
<li><p>Red underline : What does "ample content can be given to the notice" mean?</p></li>
<li><p>Sentence 2 : Denning judges that the  notice wouldn't "exempt the hotel company from liability for negligence but only from any liability as insurers". But how can content be "ample" (Question 1) if it doesn't exempt  liability for negligence? </p></li>
<li><p>Green underline : Why "unnecessary to go further"? </p></li>
</ol>

<p>A tortfeasor is liable if they have committed the tort: in this case negligence. An insurer is liable for damage irrespective of if their acts or omissions contributed to the loss. For example, if I negligently crash into your car, I am liable for your loss, however, if I’m your insurer, I’m liable for your loss even if I’m not there.</p>

<p>A common inn is (under the Act) an insurer of guests goods (up to a certain value) while a private hotel isn’t.</p>

<p>So, the notice would be “ample” to disclaim liability as an insurer <em>if</em> the premises was a private hotel. However, as a <em>post-contract</em> representation it would not limit or remove liability for negligence (which can, in general, be done although it’s rare and can’t override statutory warranties). Therefore, because the hotel was negligent “It is unnecessary to go further” and determine if the hotel was a common inn or a private hotel.</p>

contract-law england-and-wales