Implied vs Express Terms in Contract

I am against the doctrine of Foulds v. Milligan (1906), which says an implied term can override an express term when the parties' intentions can be inferred from the express terms. To me, this sounds like a recipe for confusion and disputes.

In Foulds v. Milligan, the contract had an express term stating that the landlord was not liable for damage to the tenant's goods. However, the court implied an exception to this term, making the landlord liable if the damage was caused by the landlord's own negligence. This seems ridiculous - if I sign a contract with an express term stating I won't be liable, I should be held to that.

Can anyone justify the court's decision in this case?