Parker v South Eastern Railway [1877] 2 CPD 416 is a famous Englishcontract law case on exclusion clauses where the court held that an individual cannot escape a contractual term by failing to read the contract but that a party wanting to rely on an exclusion clause must take reasonable steps to bring it to the attention of the customer.
Mr Parker left a bag in the cloakroom of Charing Cross railway station, run by the South Eastern Railway Company. On depositing his bag and paying two pence he received a ticket. On the front it said "see back". On its back, it stated that the railway was excluded from liability for items worth £10 or more. Mr Parker failed to read the clause as he thought the ticket was only a receipt of payment. However, he admitted that he knew the ticket contained writing. Mr Parker's bag, which was worth more than £10, was lost. He sued the company. The question of law put to the court was whether the clause applied to Mr Parker. At trial the jury found for Mr Parker as it was reasonable for him not to read the ticket.
Judgmentedit
Divisional Courtedit
Lord Coleridge CJ, Brett J and Lindley J decided in favour of Mr Parker, upholding the jury award. Lindley J remarked,
On the finding of the jury, I think we cannot say that the defendants did not accept the article, to be taken care of by them, without any special terms. Henderson v Stevenson,[1] therefore, is undistinguishable from this case, except for the words “see back,” which did not appear on the face of the ticket in that case. But the findings here make that distinction immaterial. After the conclusions of fact which the jury have drawn, it is, upon the authority of that case, quite immaterial whether the special terms relied on were on the front or on the back of the ticket.
Court of Appealedit
The majority of the Court of Appeal held there should be a retrial. They said that if Mr Parker knew of the conditions he would be bound. If he did not know, he would still be bound if he was given the ticket in such a way as amounted to "reasonable notice". Mellish LJ said the following.
I am of opinion, therefore, that the proper direction to leave to the jury in these cases is, that if the person receiving the ticket did not see or know that there was any writing on the ticket, he is not bound by the conditions; that if he knew there was writing, and knew or believed that the writing contained conditions, then he is bound by the conditions; that if he knew there was writing on the ticket, but did not know or believe that the writing contained conditions, nevertheless he would be bound, if the delivering of the ticket to him in such a manner that he could see there was writing upon it, was, in the opinion of the jury, reasonable notice that the writing contained conditions.
Baggallay LJ concurred, and predicted that the same result would be reached by the jury (in Mr Parker's favour). Bramwell LJ dissented, holding that reasonable notice should be a question of law, and that held have decided in favour of the railway company.
parker, south, eastern, parker, south, eastern, railway, 1877, famous, english, contract, case, exclusion, clauses, where, court, held, that, individual, cannot, escape, contractual, term, failing, read, contract, that, party, wanting, rely, exclusion, clause,. Parker v South Eastern Railway 1877 2 CPD 416 is a famous English contract law case on exclusion clauses where the court held that an individual cannot escape a contractual term by failing to read the contract but that a party wanting to rely on an exclusion clause must take reasonable steps to bring it to the attention of the customer Parker v South Eastern RailwayCourtCourt of AppealCitation s 1877 2 CPD 416Case historySubsequent action s 1875 76 LR 1 CPD 618Court membershipJudge s sittingMellish LJ Baggallay LJ Bramwell LJ Contents 1 Facts 2 Judgment 2 1 Divisional Court 2 2 Court of Appeal 3 See also 4 NotesFacts editMr Parker left a bag in the cloakroom of Charing Cross railway station run by the South Eastern Railway Company On depositing his bag and paying two pence he received a ticket On the front it said see back On its back it stated that the railway was excluded from liability for items worth 10 or more Mr Parker failed to read the clause as he thought the ticket was only a receipt of payment However he admitted that he knew the ticket contained writing Mr Parker s bag which was worth more than 10 was lost He sued the company The question of law put to the court was whether the clause applied to Mr Parker At trial the jury found for Mr Parker as it was reasonable for him not to read the ticket Judgment editDivisional Court edit Lord Coleridge CJ Brett J and Lindley J decided in favour of Mr Parker upholding the jury award Lindley J remarked On the finding of the jury I think we cannot say that the defendants did not accept the article to be taken care of by them without any special terms Henderson v Stevenson 1 therefore is undistinguishable from this case except for the words see back which did not appear on the face of the ticket in that case But the findings here make that distinction immaterial After the conclusions of fact which the jury have drawn it is upon the authority of that case quite immaterial whether the special terms relied on were on the front or on the back of the ticket Court of Appeal edit The majority of the Court of Appeal held there should be a retrial They said that if Mr Parker knew of the conditions he would be bound If he did not know he would still be bound if he was given the ticket in such a way as amounted to reasonable notice Mellish LJ said the following I am of opinion therefore that the proper direction to leave to the jury in these cases is that if the person receiving the ticket did not see or know that there was any writing on the ticket he is not bound by the conditions that if he knew there was writing and knew or believed that the writing contained conditions then he is bound by the conditions that if he knew there was writing on the ticket but did not know or believe that the writing contained conditions nevertheless he would be bound if the delivering of the ticket to him in such a manner that he could see there was writing upon it was in the opinion of the jury reasonable notice that the writing contained conditions Baggallay LJ concurred and predicted that the same result would be reached by the jury in Mr Parker s favour Bramwell LJ dissented holding that reasonable notice should be a question of law and that held have decided in favour of the railway company See also editChapelton v Barry UDC 1940 Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel 1949 another famous exclusion case Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds LtdNotes edit Law Rep 2 HL Sc 470 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Parker v South Eastern Rly Co amp oldid 1088507327, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
