''Parker v South Eastern Railway''

877 __NOTOC__ Year 877 ( DCCCLXXVII) was a common year starting on Tuesday (link will display the full calendar) of the Julian calendar. Events By place Europe * Summer – King Charles II ("the Bald") sets out for Italy, accompanie ...

2 CPD 416 is a famous

English English usually refers to: * English language * English people English may also refer to: Peoples, culture, and language * ''English'', an adjective for something of, from, or related to England ** English national ide ...

contract law A contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two or more parties that creates, defines, and governs mutual rights and obligations between them. A contract typically involves the transfer of goods, services, money, or a promise to tran ...

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.

Facts

Mr Parker left a bag in the cloakroom of Charing Cross railway station, run by the

South Eastern Railway Company The South Eastern Railway (SER) was a railway company in south-eastern England from 1836 until 1922. The company was formed to construct a route from London to Dover. Branch lines were later opened to Tunbridge Wells, Hastings, Canterbury ...

. On depositing his bag and paying two pence he received a ticket. On the front it said "see back". On its back, it stated that the railway was excluded from liability for items worth £10 or more. Mr Parker failed to read the clause as he thought the ticket was only a receipt of payment. However, he admitted that he knew the ticket contained writing. Mr Parker's bag, which was worth more than £10, was lost. He sued the company. The question of law put to the court was whether the clause applied to Mr Parker. At trial the jury found for Mr Parker as it was reasonable for him not to read the ticket.

Judgment

Divisional Court

Lord Coleridge CJ, Brett J and Lindley J decided in favour of Mr Parker, upholding the jury award. Lindley J remarked,

Court of Appeal

The majority of the Court of Appeal held there should be a retrial. They said that if Mr Parker knew of the conditions he would be bound. If he did not know, he would still be bound if he was given the ticket in such a way as amounted to "reasonable notice". Mellish LJ said the following. Baggallay LJ concurred, and predicted that the same result would be reached by the jury (in Mr Parker's favour). Bramwell LJ dissented, holding that reasonable notice should be a question of law, and that held have decided in favour of the railway company.

Notes

{{Reflist 1877 in case law Baron Bramwell cases English incorporation case law Lord Lindley cases 1877 in British law Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases Railway litigation in 1877

Facts

Judgment

Divisional Court

Court of Appeal

See also

Notes