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 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 [...].
Answer
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
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 [...].
Answer
?
Tags
#contract #exemption #law
Question
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 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 [...].
Answer
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 orated 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 <span>reasonable notice of it was not given either before or at the time of contracting.<span><body><html>
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised 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.