Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.



Tags
#contract #exemption #law
Question
Parker v South Eastern Railway Co (1876-77) LR 2 CPD 416
Answer
FACTS: The plaintiff deposited a bag in the defendant's cloakroom. He paid two pence and was given a ticket, on the face of which was printed: 'See Back'. On the back of the ticket was a printed notice saying that the company would not be responsible for loss of any item whose value was more than £10. The plaintiff's bag, which was worth more than £10, was lost and he brought an action for damages against the company. The plaintiff had not read the notice on the back of the ticket. The company pleaded the exemption clause. The jury were directed to consider whether the plaintiff had read or was aware of the exemption clause. The jury answered both these in the negative and accordingly judgment was entered for the plaintiff. HELD by the Court of Appeal on appeal by the defendant: The jury had been misdirected. The notice was clear and the ticket was a common form of contractual document. The relevant question for the jury was whether the company had taken reasonable steps to bring it to the plaintiff's attention.

Tags
#contract #exemption #law
Question
Parker v South Eastern Railway Co (1876-77) LR 2 CPD 416
Answer
?

Tags
#contract #exemption #law
Question
Parker v South Eastern Railway Co (1876-77) LR 2 CPD 416
Answer
FACTS: The plaintiff deposited a bag in the defendant's cloakroom. He paid two pence and was given a ticket, on the face of which was printed: 'See Back'. On the back of the ticket was a printed notice saying that the company would not be responsible for loss of any item whose value was more than £10. The plaintiff's bag, which was worth more than £10, was lost and he brought an action for damages against the company. The plaintiff had not read the notice on the back of the ticket. The company pleaded the exemption clause. The jury were directed to consider whether the plaintiff had read or was aware of the exemption clause. The jury answered both these in the negative and accordingly judgment was entered for the plaintiff. HELD by the Court of Appeal on appeal by the defendant: The jury had been misdirected. The notice was clear and the ticket was a common form of contractual document. The relevant question for the jury was whether the company had taken reasonable steps to bring it to the plaintiff's attention.
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Parker v South Eastern Railway Co (1876-77) LR 2 CPD 416 FACTS: The plaintiff deposited a bag in the defendant's cloakroom. He paid two pence and was given a ticket, on the face of which was printed: 'See Back'. On the back of the ticket was a

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Details

No repetitions


Discussion

Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.