- Outline the material facts of the instance in no more than 100 words. ( 20 % )
The suspect, Barry Urban District Council, offered deck chairs for hire on the beach. A notice was displayed which stated: “Hire of chairs: 2d per session of 3 hours” . The populace were requested to obtain a ticket from the attender and so retain the ticket. The attendant gave Mr Chappelton a piece of paper as a reception, and this disclaimed liability for any personal hurt. However, Mr Chappelton did non read this. The deck chair collapsed, doing him hurt. He so claimed amendss against the Council. The Council denied liability and tried to trust upon the disclaimer to except liability.
2.Explain the legal issue in the instance. ( 15 % )
The Court were required to find whether the accident was due to the carelessness of the suspect and whether Mr Chappelton had sufficient notice of the purported disclaimer on the dorsum of the ticket which was handed to him by the attender for the hire of the deck chairs. The legal issue in this instance was whether the Council’s supposed disclaimer on the dorsum of the ticket constituted a valid exclusion clause, relieving the Council from liability for Mr Chappelton’s subsequent personal hurt, or whether it had non been incorporated into the contract and they were hence apt.
3.Explain the evidences on which the County Court Judge decided the instance as he did. ( 10 % )
The County Court held that the disclaimer by the Council was deemed to hold been incorporated into the contract and hence excluded the Council’s liability for any hurt which was caused to members of the public utilizing their deck chairs. Whilst the Judge held that Mr Chappelton’s hurt was due to the Council’s carelessness, he however held that they were non apt since Mr Chappelton was deemed to hold had equal notice of the exclusion clause printed on the dorsum of the ticket and was hence bound by the footings therein.
4.With mention to the judgement of Slesser LJ, discuss in your ain words why he came to the decision that the suspects were apt in carelessness. ( 20 % )
The Court of Appeal held that the ticket was a “mere verifier or receipt” given to those who hired the Council’s deck chairs and that the conditions regulating the contract were those contained in the notice displayed near the deck chairs. The notice did non try to except liability for any resulting hurt to the populace and hence the Council was held to be apt to Mr Chappelton. Slesser LJ commented that an issue was whether the Council’s purported disclaimer had been made a term of the contract and whether it had sufficiently been brought to Mr Chappelton’s attending ; and he did non experience that either of these standards had been satisfied in the current instance. He stated that the contract between the parties was based upon the public notice displayed by the deck chairs and that Mr Chappelton was incognizant of any limitations upon the Council’s liability. He felt that the Council’s public notice simply ‘requested’ people engaging the deck chairs to obtain a ticket, which were mere ‘vouchers or receipts’ to demo how long each individual could engage the chair for. Slesser LJ held that these grosss did non change the contract in any manner and that the Council’s intended exclusion clause had non been incorporated as a term into the contract. He went on to state that the intent of the ticket was evidentiary, simply to demo that members of the populace had paid for the hire of their deck chairs and that it was no more than a reception to demo that money had been paid for the hire. Slesser LJ hence decided that the Council could non trust on their disclaimer and were apt to Mr Chappelton in carelessness for the hurt he suffered.
- Why did MacKinnon LJ and Goddard LJ see that Thompson v London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company ( 1930 ) 1 KB 41 should non be followed? ( 15 % )
MacKinnon LJ decided that the state of affairs in Thompson v London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company ( 1930 ) was wholly different to that in the current instance. He said that if an person carries out an act which amounts to the devising of a contract, such as taking a railroad ticket, so he will be bound by the conditions within any papers later given to him by the relevant representative. On the other manus, MacKinnon said that if a individual simply hands money over in return for something and is so given a reception for it, he will non be regarded as holding entered into a contract in regard of words contained on the reception, unless such proposed footings have been moderately brought to his attending. He said that there was nil to propose that the Council had sufficiently brought the footings to Mr Chappelton’s attending and hence the County Court Judge should non hold followed the instance of Thompson. Goddard LJ besides agreed that Thompson was non relevant to this instance. He said that Mr Chappelton would hold been most improbable to cognize that conditions restricting his rights and associating to the hire of the chair had supposedly been placed upon him by the Council or that such words were intended to hold been portion of the contract. Again, Goddard LJ held that the ticket was simply a reception associating to the hire of the deck chair.
6. Does it follow from the determination in this instance that a papers headed ‘Receipt’ could ne’er integrate footings? ( 20 % )
No, it does non follow. However, for a papers headed ‘receipt’ to integrate footings, certain conditions must be satisfied: ( I ) notice must be given before the contract is entered into [ 1 ] ; ( two ) the parties must hold intended the footings to organize portion of a contract and be contractually adhering [ 2 ] ; and ( three ) if the contract footings are implied ( as in this instance ) , so the suspect must hold taken sensible stairss to convey the exclusion clause to the plaintiff’s attending [ 3 ] . It must besides be noted that the more burdensome the footings, the more stairss that must be taken to convey them to the plaintiff’s attending in order for them to be deemed integrated. However, it is non sensible to anticipate the suspect to take excess stairss to counterbalance for the fact that a peculiar complainant may hold a lesser capableness than the mean individual ( eg, in instances of illiteracy ) [ 4 ] .