Trusted by 2+ million users, 1000+ happy students everyday
Showing pages 1 to 3 of 8 pages
Running head: CONTRCAT AND CONSUMER LAW Contract and Consumer LawName of the studentName of the universityAuthor note
1CONTRCAT AND CONSUMER LAW Contract LawIssueWeather Das can claim compensation against the parking lot for his stolen car.Rule.In the case of L’Estange v Graucob (1923) 2KB 394it was held by the court that any personwho signs a document is legally bound to it.In the case of Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd (1949) 1 KB 532it was held by the court thatthe term of the contract which is brought to the notice of the party after the contract has beenformed is not valid. If the term was not notified to the other party during the time when thecontract was formed such term cannot be legally binding. In addition it was provided by thecourt that where the liability of one party does not allow it to include exclusion clause inrelation to such liability the clause is not valid.In the case of Interphoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd (1988) 2 WLR615it was decided by the court that if there is an unusual condition which is sought to beimposed on a party to the contract that term has to be brought clearly to the attention of suchparty. If such term has not been brought to the attention of the party clearly the term cannotbe effective and is therefore invalid.In the case of Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd (1971) 2 QB 163it was provided by thecourt that an exclusion clause cannot be Incorporated into a contract after the contract hasalready been formed without providing reasonable notice to the other party.In the case of Causer v Browne (1952) VLR 1it was provided by the court that the exclusionclause was not valid because the other party did not know that there were additionalconditions into the contract, reasonable steps were not taken by the shopkeeper to bring the
2CONTRCAT AND CONSUMER LAW additional turn to the notice of the party, the other party did not know that they werereceiving more than just a voucher and there was no evidence which would suggest that forcleaning purposes terms were incorporated in such way.ApplicationIn this case dash Mark Park his car in the parking lot of the defendant. There was a contractbetween the two parties according to which the Car park was supposed to take care of Mark’scar for a consideration in form of the parking fee paid by Mark.However Mark found that his car missing due to the negligence on the part of the Car park asthey handed the key to one of the customers who was having problem in locating his own carkeys. According to the rules discussed above an exclusion clause has to be brought to thenotice of the party before the contract is formed. In this case no initiative was taken by theCar park to make Mark aware of an exclusion clause which stated that the Car park will notbe responsible for any loss caused to the cars. It was pointed out by the Car park that theexclusion clause was printed in front of a hotel. However such Hotel was never visited byMark therefore the exclusion clause was not seen by him. As the contract was formed whenthe car was parked by Mark in the Car park and presence of the exclusion clause was notclearly communicated to him by the Car Park the terms are not valid. In addition the purposeof a Car park is to take care of the cars parked in it. Therefore the parking lot cannot evade aliability for negligence by the inclusion of the exclusion clause.ConclusionAs the exclusion process was not brought to the notice of Mark when the contract was formedbetween him and the parking lot they exclusion clause is not valid. In addition exclusionclause would have also not been valid as it is not allowed to a liability for negligence by theincorporation of such clause.
Found this document preview useful?
You are reading a preview Upload your documents to download or Become a Desklib member to get accesss