Exclusion Clauses (3)
FURTHER CONFIRMED ---> CASE: "Interfoto v Stilleto". In this case, a contract was made regarding photo transparencies, which were accompanied by a delivery note which contained a number of conditions. HELD: Condition 2 regarding the holding fee hadn't been incorporated into the contract and that it should have been printed on bold type ink or on a separate note drawing attention to it. However, there is an excpetion: If parties have had previous consistent course of dealings then a clause need not be brought to the attention of the other party before or at the time of the contract. CASE: "Spurling v Bradshaw". In this case a contract was made for storage barrels of orange juice of which they had done a number of times before. 2 days later a letter was sent saying that they wouldn't be liable for the loss of orange juice. HELD: The court accepted that there were previous dealings ... bound by previous clause.Tickets/Notices: Aren't generally considered to be contractual documents as the clauses on them are drawn to the party's attention too late.CASE: "Chappelton v Barry". In this case the claimant hired a deck chair and was handed a ticket which said the council wouldn't be liable for any damage caused by the deckchair. The deckchair collapsed and Chappelton sustained an injury. HELD: The council were liable as handing over the ticket didn't amount to reasonable notice as the clause is seen too late. However, if a party does all that they can to bring the clause to the party's attention then a clause on a ticket/receipt will be VALID.CASE: "Parker V South Eastern Railways". In this case the claimant left his belongings in a cloakroom and was given a ticket which had the words "SEE BACK" which had a clause limiting liability of goods lost/stolen. There was also a visible notice in the cloakroom. HELD: The clause was held to be reasonable as they'd done all they could do bring the clause to the party's attention.