The plaintiff took a parcel to a railway company depot for delivery, and received a ticket on which were printed conditions including a disclaimer. On the front of the ticket were printed the words ‘see back’. The jury was asked only if they concluded that he knew of the condition.
Held: A re-trial was ordered on the company’s appeal. The judge’s direction was incorrect. The plaintiff would not be bound if he did not know there was writing on the ticket, but will be if he knows there is writing and that it contains conditions, or even if he knows there is writing, but not that it contains conditions, provided the jury was satisfied that reasonable notice had been given that the ticket did contain conditions.
Citations:
(1877) 2 CPD 416, (1877) 46 LJQB 768
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – TICC Limited v Cosco (UK) Limited CA 5-Dec-2001
The claimants sought to have incorporated by notice into a contract of bill of lading, the terms of a freight surcharge. Notice had been given to the shipping agents in Hong Kong only. The shippers claimed the surcharge under the 1992 Act, saying . .
Cited – Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd CA 12-Nov-1987
Incorporation of Onerous Terms Requires More Care
Photographic transparencies were hired out to the advertising agency defendant. The contract clauses on the delivery note included a fee which was exorbitant for the retention of transparencies beyond the set date.
Held: The plaintiff had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.182802
Comments are closed.