Facts
Interfoto delivered 47 photographic transparencies to Stiletto in a jiffy bag. Stiletto was planning to use them for a presentation, but in the event it did not. It never opened the transparency bag or read Interfoto's standard terms and conditions, which were inside the bag. Condition 2 said there was a holding fee of £5 per transparency for each day over fourteen days. After around a month, Interfoto sent a bill for £3,783.50.Judgment
The Court of Appeal held that the holding fee was ineffective. Dillon LJ said that a ‘particularly onerous or unusual’ term must have special notice. However, Interfoto was entitled to a small restitutory charge of £3.50 per transparency per week for their holding. Bingham LJ held that the clause was not valid. It was ‘a venial period of delay oran inordinate liability.’ The issue was, he said, He advocated embracing good faith - ‘showing up your cards’, ‘fair dealing’, and so on. On penalty clauses, Bingham LJ noted at the end of his decision,at 445-446; See also, Dillon LJ at 439See also
*''_Notes
{{reflist.html" ;"title="008Notes
{{reflist">2 English_incorporation_case_law Court_of_Appeal_(England_and_Wales)_cases 1987_in_case_law.html" ;"title="Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases">English incorporation case law Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases 1987 in case law">Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases">English incorporation case law Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases 1987 in case law 1987 in British law