Anglo Continental Holidays Ltd v Typaldos Lines (London) Ltd

Last updated

Anglo Continental Holidays Ltd. v. Typaldos Lines (London) Ltd. is a notable English legal case with a judgement by Lord Denning which clarified much of the common law relating to small print conditions. [1]

A trip was advertised for the Atlantica (with two swimming pools and spacious accommodation) but the line substituted the much smaller Angelika. Tapaldos Lines also shortened a two-day call at Haifa, Israel to just eight hours. The line referred to a clause in the passenger contract that indicated, "..steamers, sailing, rates and itineraries are subject to change without prior notice." The court ruled that the substitution was a radical departure from the performance of the contract and granted monetary damages to the plaintiffs. Denning said: "In my opinion a steamship company cannot rely on a clause of this kind so as to alter the substance of the transaction..." [2] The case is still cited in legal opinions regarding injury to commercial reputation. [3]

The case is very relevant today where it is often customary and expected that after the act of purchase of a piece of technology the customer will agree to a huge amount of conditions which they assume are fair.

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; If he knew there was writing, and knew or believed that the writing contained conditions, then he is bound by the conditions; 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 reasonable notice that the writing contained conditions.

Related Research Articles

<i>Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd</i> Legal doctrines of promissory estoppel

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130 is a famous English contract law decision in the High Court. It reaffirmed and extended the doctrine of promissory estoppel in contract law in England and Wales. However, the most significant part of the judgment is obiter dicta as it relates to hypothetical facts; that is, the landlord did not seek repayment of the full wartime rent.

Freedom of contract is the process in which individuals and groups form contracts without government restrictions. This is opposed to government regulations such as minimum-wage laws, competition laws, economic sanctions, restrictions on price fixing, or restrictions on contracting with undocumented workers. The freedom to contract is the underpinning of laissez-faire economics and is a cornerstone of free-market libertarianism. The proponents of the concept believe that through "freedom of contract", individuals possess a general freedom to choose with whom to contract, whether to contract or not, and on which terms to contract.

In contract law, ticket cases are a series of cases that stand for the proposition that if you are handed a ticket or another document with terms, and you retain the ticket or document, then you are bound by those terms. Whether you have read the terms or not is irrelevant, and in a sense, using the ticket is analogous to signing the document. This issue is an important one due to the proliferation of exclusion clauses that accompany tickets in everyday transactions.

<i>Parker v South Eastern Rly Co</i>

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.

<i>Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp (England) Ltd</i> 1977 Court of Appeal case involving contract formation and standard forms

Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp (England) Ltd [1977] EWCA Civ 9 is a leading English contract law case. It concerns the problem found among some large businesses, with each side attempting to get their preferred standard form agreements to be the basis for a contract.

<i>LEstrange v F Graucob Ltd</i>

L'Estrange v F Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394 is a leading English contract law case on the incorporation of terms into a contract by signature. There are exceptions to the rule that a person is bound by his or her signature, including fraud, misrepresentation and non est factum.

<i>Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd</i>

Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel[1949] 1 KB 532 is an English contract law case on exclusion clauses in contract law. The case stood for the proposition that a representation made by one party cannot become a term of a contract if made after the agreement was made. The representation can only be binding where it was made at the time the contract was formed.

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd[1970] EWCA Civ 2 is a leading English contract law case. It provides a good example of the rule that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded, without reasonable notice before. Also, it was held that an automatic ticket machine was an offer, rather than an invitation to treat.

<i>George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd</i> 1983 British court case

George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd is a case concerning the sale of goods and exclusion clauses. It was decided under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English contract law</span> Law of contracts in England and Wales

English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the Industrial Revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights.

<i>Chapelton v Barry UDC</i>

Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council [1940] 1 KB 532, the "deckchair case", is an English contract law case on offer and acceptance and exclusion clauses. It stands for the proposition that a display of goods can be an offer and a whole offer, rather than an invitation to treat, and serves as an example for how onerous exclusion clauses can be deemed to not be incorporated in a contract.

<i>J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw</i>

J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw[1956] EWCA Civ 3 is an English contract law and English property law case on exclusion clauses and bailment. It is best known for Denning LJ's "red hand rule" comment, where he said,

I quite agree that the more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it. Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink on the face of the document with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon</span> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon, the Mikhail Lermontov case, is a leading Australian contract law case, on the incorporation of exclusion clauses and damages for breach of contract or restitution for unjust enrichment.

<i>McCutcheon v David MacBrayne Ltd</i>

McCutcheon v David MacBrayne Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 125 is a Scottish contract law case, concerning the incorporation of a term through a course of dealings.

British Crane Hire Corporation Ltd v Ipswich Plant Hire Ltd [1973] EWCA Civ 6 is an English contract law case concerning the issue of incorporation of terms with regular business dealings.

Unfair terms in English contract law are regulated under three major pieces of legislation, compliance with which is enforced by the Competition & Markets Authority (CMA). The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 is the first main Act, which covers some contracts that have exclusion and limitation clauses. For example, it will not extend to cover contracts which are mentioned in Schedule I, consumer contracts, and international supply contracts. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 replaced the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and bolstered further requirements for consumer contracts. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 concerns certain sales practices.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Typaldos Lines</span>

Typaldos Lines, formally known as the Aegean Steam Navigation Company, was a privately held Greek shipping company based in the port of Piraeus, Greece. In 1956 the company had registered its headquarters in London, UK. after operating earlier as Typaldos Brothers Steamship Co. Ltd. The company purchased retired ships and refitted the vessels for passenger cruises and ferry services in the Mediterranean and Greek islands. In 1966 the ferry SS Heraklion sank in the Aegean Sea and over 200 passengers and crew members perished. In 1968 the Greek government investigation of the Heraklion incident found the ship's owners guilty of manslaughter, negligence, and document falsification. Furthermore, twelve of the company's fifteen ships had failed inspection. Haralambos Typaldos and Panayiotis Kokkinos were sentenced to jail. The company was dissolved that year when their ships were taken over or sold.

<i>Thompson v London, Midland and Scottish Rly Co</i>

Thompson v London, Midland and Scottish Railway Co Ltd [1930] 1 KB 41 is an English contract law case, concerning the exclusion of liability. It was described by Lord Denning MR in George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd as part of "a bleak winter for our law of contract." Although the same decision would not be reached today because of the application of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, English courts continue to assess on an objective basis whether reasonable notice has been given of terms and conditions so as to incorporate them in the contract.

<i>Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd</i>

Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd[2018] UKSC 24 is a judicial decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom relating to contract law, concerning consideration and estoppel. Specifically it concerned the effectiveness of "no oral variation" clauses, which provide that any amendments or waiver in relation to the contract must be in writing.

References

  1. ↑ Anglo-Continental Holidays, Ltd. v. Typaldos Lines (London), Ltd.(1967), Text .
  2. ↑ Leung, Richard (21 October 2009). "Terms, Discharge, and Breach of a Contract". Hong Kong Polytechnique University. Retrieved 16 September 2012.
  3. ↑ "Exclusion Clauses and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977". Contract Law Lecture Series. Insite Law Magazine. Retrieved 16 September 2012.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.