- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
- Posts
Hello Mike.
I am a little confused about the case of Chapelton v Barry UDC, which I looked up further on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapelton_v_Barry_UDC
From the lecture, I thought the terms of chair hire (along with the exclusion clause) were not on the ticket but listed at the hut, away from view at the point/time of sale. However the above webpage says it was written on the ticket itself.
Further, the judges decided in favour of Mr Chapelton because they did not think it reasonable that anyone would read the terms on the ticket (where the clause was). Would these same reasoning be seriously accepted today?
What exactly are we supposed to heed from this case? I am confused.
^I suppose one point is that he could perhaps only have read the ticket after the sale, not before or during the exchange of money, because it was presumably given to him after the exchange of money for ticket had occurred.
Mike on the same topic, the case Thompson v LMS Railway, she could not read, and it was not written on the ticket, or specifically brought to her attention, so how could she lose the case? is it because the station did not know she could not read? but they still did not bring it to her attention.
this seems more unreasonable then the deckchair.
from wikipedia:
For conditions see back’ which in turn referred to the Railway’s timetables and excursion bills. The timetables could be bought for sixpence said the tickets were issued on condition that holders ‘shall have no rights of action against the company …. in respect of …. injury (fatal or otherwise) …. however caused.’so it would not have been brought to her niece’s attention either.
This is from the website e-law resources
“The clause was incorporated. There is only a requirement to take reasonable steps to bring the clause to the attention of a reasonable person. There was no duty to ensure that every traveller was aware of the clause. The claimant was therefore unsuccessful in her claim for damages.”
But for Chapeltown, merely putting terms and conditions on what is basically just a receipt for money paid … that’s not sufficient. If Barry had posted signs at the start and end of their deckchair area, that would probably have given a different result
OK
- The topic ‘exclusion clause’ is closed to new replies.