Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, Court of Appeal Facts: This was a personal accident case relating to a free lance trumpeter. It also falls under the heading of “Ticket Contracts” where a contract is formed on the issuing of a paper receipt or ticket as in Pay and Display car parks. Where an automatic ticket-dispensing machine is involved, the car park operator makes the offer, in which case the placing of money in the slot is the acceptance. An alternative view is that the machine is “a booking clerk in disguise”, and that the placing of the money in the slot is the offer and the ejection of the ticket the acceptance. In this case, there was a sign indicating, “All cars parked at Owner's risk” at the entrance to the car park. A ticket was issued by a machine as the plaintiff entered the car park. The plaintiff was later injured when he returned to pick up his car.
Issues: Was the defendant exempt from liability because of the terms of an exclusion clause displayed on a pillar inside the car park? Did these terms form part of its contract with the plaintiff?
Holding: NO the defendant was NOT exempt from liability because the terms displayed on a pillar inside the car park did NOT form part of its contract with the plaintiff.
Lord Denning MR held that the more onerous the clause, the better notice of it needed to be given. Moreover, the contract was already concluded when the ticket came out of the machine, and so any condition on it could not be incorporated in the contract.
Plaintiff needs to have had the opportunity to read ALL conditions in offer and make a decision before contract is made. (If there’s a particularly onerous condition the Defendant’s has to bring it to the plaintiff’s attention (“gotta like underline it, put it in a Dif colour, point it out to the other party” Erica, 2018)
Reasons: Lord Denning held that a parking garage could not escape liability where critical exemption information was printed on a ticket ejected automatically from a machine. He stated, “The plaintiff did not know of the condition, and the defendants did not do what was reasonably sufficient to give him notice of it”. The offer was made when the machine is held out as being ready to accept money. The contract is complete when the customer puts money in the slot. The terms of the offer are those placed near the machine, sufficiently brought to the customer's attention. In this case the sign saying that the car was parked at the owner’s risk. Further conditions appearing on the ticket have no effect.This case gives a good example of the rule that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded, without reasonable notice before.
