Thompson v London, Midland and Scottish Rly Co

Last updated

Thompson v London, Midland and Scottish Rly Co Ltd
Darwen railway station - geograph.org.uk - 2071996.jpg
CourtCourt of Appeal
Keywords
Contract, exclusion clause

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." [1] 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.

Contents

Facts

Mrs Thompson slipped on a ramp while disembarking a train operated by London, Midland and Scottish Railway at 10pm, from Manchester to Darwen, and was injured. The train had pulled up just past the platform, and so the ramp she stepped out on was slippery. A special jury found the railway to have been negligent, and so Mrs Thompson sought damages for personal injury. She had been given an excursion ticket by her niece, which said "Excursion. For conditions see back" which in turn referred to the Railway's timetables and excursion bills. The timetables could be bought for sixpence said the tickets were issued on condition that holders "shall have no rights of action against the company ... in respect of ... injury (fatal or otherwise) ... however caused." A jury found that the company had not taken reasonable steps to bring the conditions to the notice of Mrs Thompson and awarded damages. But then the judge, as a matter of law, held that when the ticket was accepted the contract was complete, and so the jury was not entitled to find as they did. Mrs Thompson could not read.

Judgment

Lord Harnworth MR held that, regardless of whether Mrs Thompson could read, she was bound by the contract, and the indication of further conditions by reference was sufficient notice. He said "we feel no difficulty in coming to a conclusion."

Lawrence LJ and Sankey LJ concurred.

See also

Related Research Articles

Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English tort law</span> Branch of English law concerning civil wrongs

English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil law, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.

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.

<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.

In English law, remoteness between a cause of action and the loss or damage sustained as a result is addressed through a set of rules in both tort and contract, which limit the amount of compensatory damages available for a wrong.

<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.

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>Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd</i>

Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd[1972] EWCA 8 is an English contract law case on the measure of damages for disappointing breaches of contract.

<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>Litigation before the judgment in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co</i>

The Litigation before the judgment in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company was a rather decorated affair, considering that a future Prime Minister served as counsel for the company. A close reading of the submissions and the decision in the Queen's Bench show that the result of the Court of Appeal was not inevitable or necessarily a decision on orthodox principles of previous case law.

<i>Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society</i>

Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd. v West Bromwich Building Society[1997] UKHL 28 is a frequently-cited English contract law case which laid down that a contextual approach must be taken to the interpretation of contracts.

<i>Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd</i>

Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd [1909] AC 488 is an old English contract law and UK labour law case, which used to restrict damages for non-pecuniary losses for breach of contract.

Thake v Maurice [1986] QB 644 is an English contract law case, concerning the standard of care that must be exercised by surgeons in performing operations.

Incorporation of terms in English law is the inclusion of terms in contracts formed under English law in such a way that the courts recognise them as valid. For a term to be considered incorporated it must fulfil three requirements. Firstly, notice of the terms should be given before or during the agreement of the contract. Secondly, the terms must be found in a document intended to be contractual. Thirdly, "reasonable steps" must be taken by the party who forms the term to bring it to the attention of the other party. The rules on incorporating terms in English law are almost all at a common law level.

<i>Bunge Corp v Tradax Export SA</i>

Bunge Corporation v Tradax Export SA[1981] UKHL 11 is an English contract law case concerning the right to terminate performance of a contract.

<i>Hurst v Picture Theatres Ltd</i> 1915 English land law case

Hurst v Picture Theatres Ltd [1915] 1 KB 1 is an English land law case, concerning licences "in" land, specifically ticketed events. The appeal court confirmed that there is no right, based on e.g. land owner's discretion as to determining trespassers, to remove the attendee if the venue operator is mistaken as to the attendee's right to attend.

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.

References

  1. [1982] EWCA Civ 5