Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 WLR 585 The plaintiff was injured in the defendant's car park. There was a sign indicating "All cars parked at Owner's risk" at the entrance to the car park. The 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. The trial judge found that fault lay partially with the defendant who was found liable. The defendant appealed claiming to rely upon exemption clauses. In small print on the ticket appeared the words "This ticket is issued subject to the conditions of issue as displayed on the premises." The plaintiff says he looked at the ticket on entering the car park but only noticed the time printed thereon, and not the small print. The conditions which appeared on a panel near the entrance were exhaustive and sought to exclude the defendant's liability inter alia for any personal injury caused by their negligence.
HELD Lord Denning MR
He referred to earlier cases where tickets were issued by booking clerks to passengers on railways etc. The issuing of a ticket was considered the offer, incorporating any conditions appearing on the ticket, and the retaining of it without objection was considered an acceptance of the offer. The theory that the customer could refuse to enter the contract on those terms and request a refund was a fiction. Not one customer in a thousand read the conditions on such tickets.
These cases have no application to tickets issued by automatic machines. The offer is 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.
If however the machine is a ticket person in disguise, the older cases should be considered. The court should not hold a person bound by a broad exempting condition appearing on the ticket, unless it is brought to that person's attention in the most explicit way - printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it - or something equally startling. How can a car park give effective notice? In this case sufficient notice was not given of these conditions. Even on the older authorities, the defendant then fails.
HELD Megaw LJ
He reserved judgment on the precise time when the contract was concluded. Analysing the case in terms of the older authorities, Megaw agreed with Denning that the defendant's had not sufficiently drawn the exempting condition to the plaintiff's attention. Megaw pictured the indignation of the defendant if the potential customers, having taken their tickets, and observed the reference appearing there, were to leave their cars blocking the entrance while they went in search of these conditions. Clearly they were not expected to do this, and so were not given fair opportunity to discover these conditions.
Sir Gordon Wilmer agreed.
HELD Lord Denning MR
He referred to earlier cases where tickets were issued by booking clerks to passengers on railways etc. The issuing of a ticket was considered the offer, incorporating any conditions appearing on the ticket, and the retaining of it without objection was considered an acceptance of the offer. The theory that the customer could refuse to enter the contract on those terms and request a refund was a fiction. Not one customer in a thousand read the conditions on such tickets.
These cases have no application to tickets issued by automatic machines. The offer is 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.
If however the machine is a ticket person in disguise, the older cases should be considered. The court should not hold a person bound by a broad exempting condition appearing on the ticket, unless it is brought to that person's attention in the most explicit way - printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it - or something equally startling. How can a car park give effective notice? In this case sufficient notice was not given of these conditions. Even on the older authorities, the defendant then fails.
HELD Megaw LJ
He reserved judgment on the precise time when the contract was concluded. Analysing the case in terms of the older authorities, Megaw agreed with Denning that the defendant's had not sufficiently drawn the exempting condition to the plaintiff's attention. Megaw pictured the indignation of the defendant if the potential customers, having taken their tickets, and observed the reference appearing there, were to leave their cars blocking the entrance while they went in search of these conditions. Clearly they were not expected to do this, and so were not given fair opportunity to discover these conditions.
Sir Gordon Wilmer agreed.
No comments:
Post a Comment