''Woodman v Photo Trade Processing Ltd'' (1981) 131 NLJ 933 is an

English contract law 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 ...

case concerning unfair contract terms.

Facts

A photograph developing shop, Photo Trade Processing Ltd, lost some snaps from a wedding. Its standard contract clause excluded liability for damages which exceeded the cost of the material itself.

Judgment

Clarke J held that the photo shop was liable to Woodman for the loss of the photographs, because other alternative sources of supply were not shown to be available nearby and the photo shop had not offered a service without the exclusion clause under the

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977c 50 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which regulates contracts by restricting the operation and legality of some contract terms. It extends to nearly all forms of contract and one of its most impor ...

sections 2(2) or 3. Other ways that the customer's needs could be met were still relevant for this service contract through the reasonableness test under Schedule 2, even though its listing in Schedule 2 on the Act's strict wording, are only relevant for supply of goods (sections 6 and 7). The Code of Practice agreed between the OFT and the Photographic Industry envisaged a two tiered service. And because the defendants did not provide a two-tiered service, one low risk higher fee and one high risk lower fee, they had not discharged their burden to persuade him the clause was reasonable. In the course of his judgment he referred to '' Peek v North Staffordshire Rly Co''(1863) 10 HLCas 473, 493 where under the

Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1854 The Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1854, also known as Cardwell's Act, was an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament regulating the operation of railways. The railways were already considered to be common carriers and thus subject to the Carriers Ac ...

liability exclusion clauses were permitted that were ‘just and reasonable’. The clause excluded liability for loss to fragile goods unless they were declared insured according to value. Six to five, the Lords ruled that the clause was invalid because liability for mistake as well as negligence was excluded, the railway had a monopoly so customers had only the company's terms, and only ‘exorbitant’ insurance was available.

Notes

{{reflist, 2

References

* English contract case law 1981 in United Kingdom case law

Facts

Judgment

See also

Notes

References