Exemption clauses: incorporation

Chapelton v Barry UDC [1940]

(Contractual document) Ticket was a 'mere receipt' not a contractual document and so the Exemption Clause didn't apply

L'Estrange v Graucob [1934]

(Methods of incorporation: Signature) When document containing contractual terms is signed (with no fraud involved or misrepresentation) the party signing is bound regardless of having read or understood the document

Parker v SE Railway (1876)

(Methods of incorporation: reasonable notice) Those seeking to rely on an exemption clause have to provide reasonable notice, having taken reasonable steps in directing victim's attention to exempted clauses

Olley v Marlborough Court [1949]

(Timing) Denning LJ- Notice of terms must occur just before or at time of contract being made

Incorporation of terms

1. by signature 2. By reasonable notice 3. By consistent and regular course of dealing

Curtis v Chemical Cleaning [1951]

A term contained in a signed contractual document will not be binding due to an overriding oral assurance

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971]

Clear notice needs to be brought before customers. Customer is not bound by terms on the ticket if they differ from the notice, because the ticket comes too late

McCutcheon v Macbrayne [1964]

Consistent course of dealing is required to incorporate terms

Kendall v Lillico [1969]

Continuing to contract showed assent to the terms, so incorporation worked (regular)

Alisa Craig v Malvern Fishing [1983]

Contra proferentum rule applied, but the negligence covered was sufficiently specific

Hollier v Rambler Motors [1972]

Course of dealing must be regular for incorporation of terms (consistent)

Construction

Exemption clause needs to cover specific loss in order to exempt it- plain meaning shows it covers such exemption

Contra Proferentum

Where exemption clauses are ambiguous, they must be construed against the party seeking to rely on them

Interfoto v Stiletto [1989]

Where terms are more unusual or onerous, the more notice must be given