Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970]
Share
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] is a significant English contract law case that illustrates the principle that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded without reasonable notice beforehand. Additionally, it establishes that an automatic ticket machine constitutes an offer rather than an invitation to treat. However, the case's impact has diminished, as current regulations prohibit businesses from excluding liability for personal injury due to negligence.
Francis Thornton, a freelance trumpeter, parked his car in a multi-storey car park operated by Shoe Lane Parking before attending a performance. He received a ticket from the automatic ticket machine, stating that it was subject to conditions displayed on the premises. An exclusion clause on pillars near the paying office excluded liability for injuries to the customer.
The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the garage company could not escape liability due to the ineffective exclusion clause. Lord Denning MR held that the more burdensome the clause, the clearer the notice needed to be. He emphasised that the contract was concluded when the ticket was issued, and any condition on it could not be incorporated afterward. The exclusion clause attempting to exempt the company from liability for personal injury was deemed ineffective.
Lord Denning MR further clarified that the automatic machine's offer was made when the machine was ready to receive payment, and the acceptance occurred when the customer paid. The terms were those displayed before the ticket was issued, and any differing terms on the ticket itself were irrelevant. Even if the automatic machine were treated as a booking clerk, the customer had to know or reasonably believe that the ticket was issued subject to the exclusion clause.
The Court found that the company did not provide reasonable notice of the exclusion clause. While Mr. Thornton did not know of the condition, the company failed to do what was reasonably sufficient to give him notice of it.
Megaw LJ and Sir Gordon Willmer agreed with the onerous notice requirement but reserved their opinions on where the contract was concluded. Sir Gordon distinguished the case from others involving ticket conditions issued by human clerks, as the automatic machine did not afford the buyer an opportunity to object.
This case is important for its principles regarding the incorporation of clauses and the nature of contracts formed through automatic ticket machines. While the case is significant in illustrating these concepts, subsequent legislation, such as the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, has limited the effectiveness of exclusion clauses in cases involving personal injury due to negligence.
Francis Thornton, a freelance trumpeter, parked his car in a multi-storey car park operated by Shoe Lane Parking before attending a performance. He received a ticket from the automatic ticket machine, stating that it was subject to conditions displayed on the premises. An exclusion clause on pillars near the paying office excluded liability for injuries to the customer.
The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the garage company could not escape liability due to the ineffective exclusion clause. Lord Denning MR held that the more burdensome the clause, the clearer the notice needed to be. He emphasised that the contract was concluded when the ticket was issued, and any condition on it could not be incorporated afterward. The exclusion clause attempting to exempt the company from liability for personal injury was deemed ineffective.
Lord Denning MR further clarified that the automatic machine's offer was made when the machine was ready to receive payment, and the acceptance occurred when the customer paid. The terms were those displayed before the ticket was issued, and any differing terms on the ticket itself were irrelevant. Even if the automatic machine were treated as a booking clerk, the customer had to know or reasonably believe that the ticket was issued subject to the exclusion clause.
The Court found that the company did not provide reasonable notice of the exclusion clause. While Mr. Thornton did not know of the condition, the company failed to do what was reasonably sufficient to give him notice of it.
Megaw LJ and Sir Gordon Willmer agreed with the onerous notice requirement but reserved their opinions on where the contract was concluded. Sir Gordon distinguished the case from others involving ticket conditions issued by human clerks, as the automatic machine did not afford the buyer an opportunity to object.
This case is important for its principles regarding the incorporation of clauses and the nature of contracts formed through automatic ticket machines. While the case is significant in illustrating these concepts, subsequent legislation, such as the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, has limited the effectiveness of exclusion clauses in cases involving personal injury due to negligence.
