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
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163
Answer
FACTS: The plaintiff drove his car to a multi-storey automatic car park that he had never used before. The machine issued the plaintiff with a ticket that stated that the ticket was issued 'subject to the conditions of issue as displayed on the premises'. The plaintiff drove into the car park without reading the words on the ticket or those displayed on a pillar opposite the ticket machine. When he returned, he was severely injured while attempting to put his belongings into his car. The defendant company claimed that the ticket was a contractual document and that it incorporated a condition exempting them, inter alia, from liability for injury to the customer occurring when the customer's motor vehicle was in the car park. HELD by the Court of Appeal: The plaintiff was not bound by the exemption clause because reasonable notice of it was not given either before or at the time of contracting.

Tags
#contract #exemption #law
Question
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163
Answer
?

Tags
#contract #exemption #law
Question
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163
Answer
FACTS: The plaintiff drove his car to a multi-storey automatic car park that he had never used before. The machine issued the plaintiff with a ticket that stated that the ticket was issued 'subject to the conditions of issue as displayed on the premises'. The plaintiff drove into the car park without reading the words on the ticket or those displayed on a pillar opposite the ticket machine. When he returned, he was severely injured while attempting to put his belongings into his car. The defendant company claimed that the ticket was a contractual document and that it incorporated a condition exempting them, inter alia, from liability for injury to the customer occurring when the customer's motor vehicle was in the car park. HELD by the Court of Appeal: The plaintiff was not bound by the exemption clause because reasonable notice of it was not given either before or at the time of contracting.
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163 FACTS: The plaintiff drove his car to a multi-storey automatic car park that he had never used before. The machine issued the plaintiff with a ticket that stated that the ticket was issu

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.