When did they give you the small print? If they gave it to you after you had agreed the work and entered into the contract with them, they cannot then add new terms into the contract. In this case, they would be obliged to act "reasonably" ie. to take reasonable precautions to ensure that they don't trash your house etc.
If the terms were on the back of a document that you signed, you are taken as having accepted the terms and conditions written on the back BUT, where he was trying to exclude or restrict his liability for loss or damage caused to your property by his negligence, he can only do so if that term of the contract is "reasonable". There is an act called the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, and it says that, to determing whether the term of the contract is fair and reasonable, you must have "regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made."
So, was it reasonable for them to agree that they could come and trash your house, dent your fridge and leave rubbish everywhere? Probably not, but either way, if THEY are relying on the fact that the contract was reasonable, THEY muct prove that it is (section 11(5) of the Act). Although there are no hard and fast rules as to what is and is not reasonable, you could certainly point out that he had seen your house and knew full well that you were not going to be moving out the fridge etc.
Also (not sure how much info you want, but I'm having a quiet day at work, so I'll carry on...) if there are unreasonable or extreme terms in a contract, the person seeking to rely on them (ie. the builders) should have made sure that they bring them to your attention. The more onerous the terms, the more important it is that they make you well aware of them before signing, otherwise they would probably not be allowed to rely on them.
So here, I'd probably write them a letter saying clear up your mess / finish the job / pay for my fridge etc. and wait for them to reply that they're not liable because of the exemption clause. When they do that, write again and say that, as they were attempting to avoid liability for their own negligence, (i) the term was unreasonable and therefore not valid. If they disagree, it is for them to prove otherwise (refer to sections 2(2), 11(1) and 11(5) of the UCTA if you want); and (ii) point out that they are his standard terms of business and you are a consumer, so he should have made you well aware of the terms if he wanted to rely on them.
I hope that helps!!!
You can always threaten legal action - it's v. easy to start a claim in the Small Claims Court, so chuck that in too.
Good luck!
)
The Act is available here:
www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=all+primary&PageNumber=50&NavFrom=2&parentA ctiveTextDocId=224526&ActiveTextDocId=224526&filesize=137496