Contracts Case Briefs + Notes for Midterm #1: Wed, Feb 14, 2018 Remedies p 791
Download 61.79 Kb.
|
| Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, Court of Appeal
Facts: Here we have a freelance trumpeter who had an engagement with the BBC. He drove to the closest parking spot at an automated parkaid; went to his performance and came back and suffered an injury. At trial the defendant was found contributory negligent and the trial judge split the responsibility 50/50 between plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff sued for the balance of the damages. The defendants attempted to rely on exemption clauses. There was a sign upon entering the lot saying basically enter at risk. These conditions were posted opposite the wall from where the ticket was issued. The plaintiff merely printed the ticket and put it in his pocket. He only read the time he checked in. did not realize he was subject to certain conditions. The only way he could have made himself aware was by looking around at where the signs were posted. And in this case it was a machine issuing the ticket, and when the ticket is issued, the contract has already been concluded. The offer was contained in the notice at the entrance and posted signs of pay for garage use, and acceptance was putting money into the machine. The ticket itself was more or less a receipt of the contract. Issue: was the exemption clause incorporated into the contract? Holding: NO the exemption clause incorporated into the contract – the plaintiff did not know of the condition, and the defendant did not reasonably do what is required to draw his attention to the condition. Reasons: offer, acceptance [putting money into slot], and consideration have already passed and the contract has formed before the ticket is issued. So since the person using the parkaid had no knowledge of the conditions before receiving the ticket, then the conditions cannot be imported after the fact. Moreover, in order to reject the offer, the plaintiff would need to know the conditions. Or, as Justin pointed out in class, have the means to immediately get his money back if he found out after the case (sounds like a ProCD sort of case). POTENTIAL EXAM QUESTION: If you see a question on the midterm to the effect that someone makes use of storage facilities, so they pay a fee and store goods there and they are issued a receipt and there are conditions on the receipt’s backside; and the person using the warehouse is aware there are conditions attached to the agreement – but they don’t read them. They pay the fee, take the receipt that contains the conditions, and after they return to pick up their goods they discover they’ve been stolen and they are unable to get them back. so they sue the warehouser. He points to the fine print and says we are exempt from any liability due to this wide / general exemption clause similar to McCutcheon’s case – a sort of blanket exemption. A clause like that is so onerous upon the other party that even if the party against whom the clause is to be enforced is aware of the conditions – unless that was specifically brought to their attention, then the warehouser would not be able to enforce the clause. If they are not aware at the time of making the contract, they cannot be incorporated into the contract later on. However if there was big red lettering on the receipt, or the pointed to it, aka they have taken reasonable steps to bring your attention to the exemption clause / give notice – then it might be enforceable. OR similarly, if they are posted right-side along with the prices on the wall same thing, and the clerk in the store indicates that it is subject to those conditions – and you go ahead and pay for it but don’t read them. You might be shit out of luck because the defendant took all reasonable steps to bring the clause to the notice of the plaintiff. In other words, the party incorporating the onerous clause has to do everything possible to bring the clause to the notice of the other party – and there will be no liability. Download 61.79 Kb. Share with your friends:
|