Ticket Cases

In contract law , ticket cases are a series of cases that stand for the proposition that if you are handed a ticket or another document with terms , and you retain the ticket or document , then you are bound by those terms . Whether you have read the terms or not is irrelevant , and in a sense , using the ticket is analogous to signing the document . This issue is an important one due to the proliferation of exclusion clauses that accompany tickets in everyday transactions .

The case of Parker v. The South Eastern Railway Co ( 1877 ) 2 CPD 416 illustrates restrictions on this concept :

• Knowledge of writing and of terms : If the recipient of the ticket knew that there was writing on the ticket and also knew that the ticket contained terms , then the recipient is bound by the terms of the contract . 
• Reasonable person : If the recipient did not know of the existence of the terms , then the court will consider whether a reasonable person would have known that the ticket contained terms . If that is so , then the ticket - holder is bound by those terms ; if not , then the court will return to the general test of whether reasonable notice of the terms was given .

Tbe test of whether a document fits within the description of a ticket is an objective test , that is , whether a reasonable person in the position of the ticket-holder would perceive it to be contractual in nature . For instance , if exclusion clauses accompany a docket , it may be held that it is not contractual  in nature since it is just a receipt .

Furthermore , Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v. Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd ( 1989 ) 1 QB 433 held that if a party wishes to incorporate onerous terms into a document that is to be just accepted by the other party , reasonable notice must be given to make it a term of the contract .

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 terms 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 .

Background
Mr. Parker left a bag in the cloakroom of a railway station . On depositiing his bag and paying two pence he received a ticket , which , on its back , stated that the railway was excluded from liability for items worth 10 or more . Parker failed to read the clause as he though the ticket was only a receipt of payment . ( However , he admitted that he knew the ticket contained writing ) The question of law put to the court was whether the clause applied to Parker . At trial the jury found for Mr.Parker as it was reasonable for him not to read the ticket.

Judgment
The court held that if Parker was aware the ticket contained writing , Mr. Parker would be presumed to know of the existence of the clause . However , it also ruled that the railway must have shown that it went to reasonable efforts to bring the condition to Mr.Parker's attention . The Court ordered a retrial for the jury to consider whether reasonable notice was given .

Thorton v. SHoe Lane Parking Ltd . (1971)
Entering into a parking garage , a patron paid his money into an automatic teller and out came a ticket . ALthough the patron did not notice it , the ticket contained a notice " This ticket is issued subject to the conditions of issue as displayed on the premises. " There was also a notice board outside that read " All cars parked at owners' risk " The judges decided that the liability exemption condition did not apply because the contract was concluded when the patron put his money into the machine . "The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice beforehand , but not otherwise . He is not bound by the terms printed ont he ticket if they differ from the notice , because the ticket comes too late ( the patron having already paid ) . THe contract has already been made . "

Karsales ( Harrow ) Ltd .v. Wallis ( 1956)
-Fundamental breach defeats exclusion clause

A car was bought with " no condition or warranty that the vehicle was road worthy ." An earlier inspection of the vehicle had shown it to be road worthy , but it was no longer so upon delivery . The exclusion clause was set aside . "Notwithstanding earlier cases which might suggest the contrary , it is now settled that exempting clauses of this kind , no matter how widely they are expressed , only avail the party when he is carrying out his contract in its essential aspects . He is not allowed to use them as a cover for misconduct or indifference or to enable him to turn a blind eye to his obligations .... If he has been guilty of a breach of those obligations in a respect which goes to the vey root of the contract , he cannot rely on the exempting clauses."