The Final Decision of the Court: the Special Contract Printed on the Ticket - Research Paper Example

(i) In which court was Chapelton v Barry UDC heard Ans. Chapelton v Barry UDC was heard in the Court of Appeal. (ii) In which court was the case originally heard Ans. The case was originally heard in Cardiff and Barry County Court. (iii) What are the facts of the case Ans. The facts of the case are as follows that the plaintiff, who wished to hire a deck chair on a beach went to a pile of deck chairs belonging to the defendant council near to which was displayed a notice in the following terms: "Barry Urban District Council. Cold Knap. Hire of chairs 2dollars. per session for 3 hours." The notice went on to state that the public were requested to obtain tickets for their chairs from the chair attendants and that those tickets should be retained for inspection. There was nothing on the notice relieving the defendant council from liability for any accident or damage arising out of the hire of a chair. The plaintiff obtained two chairs from the attendant for which he paid 4dollars and received two tickets therefore. The plaintiff glanced at the tickets and slipped them into his pocket and had no idea that they contained any conditions. On one side of the tickets were the words: "Barry Urban District Council. Cold Knap. Chair Ticket 2dollars. Not transferable," with half hours printed on the side of the tickets. On the other side of the tickets were the words: "Available for three hours. Time expires where indicated by cut-off and should be retained and shown on request. The council will not be liable for any accident or damage arising from the hire of the chair." The plaintiff put the chairs up in the ordinary way on a flat part of the beach, and then sat down on a chair, which gave way, the canvas having come away from the top of the chair. In an action against the defendants the county court judge found that the accident was due to the negligence of the defendants, but that the defendants were exempted from liability as the plaintiff had sufficient notice of the special contract printed on the ticket. (iv) Which of the facts that were set out at the beginning of the case report (i.e. the head-note) were irrelevant to the final decision of the court Ans. The facts that were set out at the beginning of the case report that were found irrelevant to the final decision of the court are as follows that " after the plaintiff purchased the tickets he glanced at the tickets and slipped them into his pocket and had no idea that they contained any conditions. On one side of the tickets were the words: "Barry Urban District Council. Cold Knap. Chair Ticket 2d. Not transferable," with half hours printed on the side of the tickets. On the other side of the tickets were the words: "Available for three hours. Time expires where indicated by cut-off and should be retained and shown on request. The council will not be liable for any accident or damage arising from the hire of the chair." The plaintiff put the chairs up in the ordinary way on a flat part of the beach, and then sat down on a chair, which gave way, the canvas having come away from the top of the chair. In an action against the defendants the county court judge found that the accident was due to the negligence of the defendants, but that the defendants were exempted from liability as the plaintiff had sufficient notice of the special contract printed on the ticket." The above stated facts were found irrelevant as considered by the Cardiff and Barry County Court. (v) Were any facts missed out from the head-note that might have influenced the court in making its final decision Ans. As per the facts of the Head Note "The plaintiff, who wished to hire a deck chair on a beach went to a pile of deck chairs belonging to the defendant council near to which was displayed a notice in the following terms: "Barry Urban District Council. Cold Knap. Hire of chairs 2d. per session of 3 hours." The notice went on to state that the public were requested to obtain tickets for their chairs from the chair attendants and that those tickets should be retained for inspection. There was nothing on the notice relieving the defendant council from liability for any accident or damage arising out of the hire of a chair. The plaintiff obtained two chairs from the attendant for which he paid 4d. and received two tickets therefor. The plaintiff glanced at the tickets and slipped them into his pocket and had no idea that they contained any conditions. On one side of the tickets were the words: "Barry Urban District Council. Cold Knap. Chair Ticket 2d. Not transferable," with half hours printed on the side of the tickets. On the other side of the tickets were the words: "Available for three hours. Time expires where indicated by cut-off and should be retained and shown on request. The council will not be liable for any accident or damage arising from the hire of the chair." The plaintiff put the chairs up in the ordinary way on a flat part of the beach, and then sat down on a chair which gave way, the canvas having come away from the top of the chair." It cannot be said that the Court of Appeal missed any vital facts from the basic facts of the case that are contained in the Head Note before adjudicating on the final decision of the case. (vi) What had been the decision of the lower court On what grounds had this decision been reached Ans. In an action by the plaintiff against the Barry Urban District Council the lower court of the county court judge found as a fact that the accident to the plaintiff was due to negligence on the part of the defendants, but he held, relying on Thompson v. London, Midland and Scottish Ry. Co. [1930] 1 K. B. 41, that the defendants were exempted from liability by reason of the fact that the plaintiff had sufficient notice of the special contract printed on the ticket. (vii) On what basis had the defendant/appellant appealed Ans In this case the defendant / appellant took the stand that the county court judge was wrong in holding that the plaintiff had sufficient notice of the conditions printed on the ticket and was therefore bound by the same. He relied on Henderson v. Stevenson n(1) that is directly in point in the present case.He further said that the defendants in the county court relied upon the decision of the Court of Appeal in Thompson v. London, Midland and Scottish Ry. Co. n(2) , especially the judgment of Sankey L.J. In that case it was held, following Watkins v. Rymill n(3) , that the plaintiff was bound by the special contract made on the excursion ticket on the acceptance of that ticket. That case is distinguishable from the present case because here there was nothing on the face of the ticket to call attention to the fact that there were conditions printed on the back of the ticket. The remarks of Mellish L.J. in Parker v. South Eastern Ry. Co. n(4) apply directly to the present case. The ticket in the present case was like a receipt for a toll paid at a toll gate. [Nunan v. Southern Ry. Co. n(5) was also referred to.] (viii) What was the decision of the present court What reasons were given for the decision Ans. The present Court allowed the appeal of the appellant and overruled the decision of the county court by saying that the facts of the present case make it a fit case of negligence on the part of the respondents/defendants and the issue of the ticket by the defendants to the Plaintiff doesn't bound him to the terms and conditions printed at the back of the ticket. The ticket cannot more be taken as a receipt. The reasons that the Court of appeal gave for the decision are that the appellant got a sitting chair on hire from the resort company for 3 hours on the payment of 2 dollars. He was issued a ticket in lieu of the payment on the back side of which were printed various terms and conditions and disclaimer. The appellant got injured due to the faulty chair and brought this action for negligence and damages against the defendants. The defendants relied on the terms printed at the back side of the ticket and argued that it was a contractual relationship between them and the appellant as by purchasing the ticket the appellant has agreed to the terms printed at the back of the ticket. The Court of appeal said that it was a tricky case that can be decided in the light of facts but it cannot cannot come in to the category of class of case where it is said that there is a term in the contract freeing railway companies, or other providers of facilities, from liabilities which they would otherwise incur at common law, it is a question as to how far that condition has been made a term of the contract and whether it has been sufficiently brought to the notice of the person entering into the contract with the railway company, or other body. At the most it was a case of offer made by the local authority to the general public that in effect said that "We offer to provide you with a chair, and if you accept that offer and sit in the chair, you will have to pay for that privilege 2d. per session of three hours." There was no public display of the liability of the council along with the notice where the general public was requested to avail the facility by paying 2 d to the chair attendants. The language of the notice put up by the local authority showed that they are merely issuing a receipt against the payment of 2d. It cannot be made out by any one who is purchasing a ticket that he is entering in to a contractual relationship with the local authority by impliedly adhering to the terms printed at the back of the ticket. Nor any notice was given on the front of the ticket to look on the backside and read the terms. In nut shell the Court said that there was no evidence as per the facts of the case through which it can be shown that the appellant was bound by the conditions printed at the back of the ticket. (ix) Did all the judges adopt the same reasoning for their decisions. Ans. Yes all the judges adopted the same reasoning for their decisions. (x) What is the ratio decidendi of Chapelton v Barry UDC Consider a 'limited ratio' and a 'wider ratio'. Ans. The ratio decidendi of Chapelton v. Barry UDC is that if a person pays money for a service and receives a receipt for it, he cannot be deemed to have entered into a contract in the terms of the words that his creditor has chosen to print on the back of the receipt, unless, of course, the creditor has taken reasonable steps to bring the terms of the proposed contract to the mind of the man. In a general offer or invitation to treat to the public at large if there are any conditions attached to the offer than they should be brought to the notice of the acceptor in a reasonable manner and not to be considered impliedly as part of the whole transaction. (xi) Ans. (a) In this case A makes a offer to purchase the loaf of bread to the cashier who is well within his right to either accept A's offer or decline it. (b) This a case of a railway ticket and according to Thompson v. London, Midland and Scottish Ry. Co. [1930] 1 K. B. 41 it can be said that A is bound by the terms printed at the backside of the railway ticket. (xii) Ans. No there is no mistake to the phrasing of the questions. Read More