Appeal between Jones and Saga Ltd regarding car parking

This is an appeal case between Jones and Saga Ltd regarding car parking. The terms and conditions of the contract, liability, and charges are discussed.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) Case No: J6/2020/1559
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
JUSTICE PRYCE
BETWEEN:
Jones Appellant
And
Saga Ltd Respondent
SKELETON ARGUMENT
ON BEHALF OF THE
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT
Saga ltd (i) or Mr. Jones (ii)
Introduction
1. it is first hearing in Court of Appeal between Jones and Saga ltd regarding claim which is
done pnm basis of ground that terms were not incorporated and which is not effective on
liability of Saga ltd.
Authorities
there are several authorities which are defined within case. they are
a. ticket received by Mr. Jones for his car park in Saga ltd.
b. A sign stated at front gate of parking stating “ parking subject to terms and conditions”
c. the notice board including all details of terms and conditions of car parking
d. the statement in notice boar consisting of two terms and conditions.
e. Website of Saga ltd where all terms and conditions are mentioned.

Ground 1/2
1. in this appeal is made by Mr jones on basis of ground that the terms were not incorporated
as there was not no contract made into it. this is because Mr jones did no agree to terms.
thus, pryce J has dismissed claim on basis of that all terms were incorporated into contract
between Mr jones and saga ltd. moreover, as mentioned into terms Mr jones is liable to pay
€500 for charge of 10 days.
2. the second ground is that even if terms are incorporated, they are not effective to exclude
saga ltd liability to charge €50 per day.
Background:
a. this is case of Jones vs saga ltd regarding the car parking. here, Mr jones parked his
mercedes benz in saga ltd parking on 28 December 2019. he has done many times before.
However, at entrance of car parking there was a sign stating parking is subject to terms and
conditions. Mr Jones received ticket from machine and he put that pocket without reading
it.
b. Mr jones parked his car for 16 days into parking. so, when he arrived on 16 day the car was
destroyed due to collapse of concrete pillar on it. the pillar was maintained by saga ltd.
c. the pryce J dismissed claim due to finding that all statement were as terms of contract
between Mr jones and saga ltd. and for construction terms contract excluded saga liability
for negligence and they have to charge € 50 per day.
a. The terms and conditions for the parking are displayed and Mr Jones was asked to go and
read them, so they had to be read and agreed by Mr Jones because he was asked to do so
before entering the contract, therefore he is bound because they are incorporated the
contract.
b. As a result, case it is show that how the terms are incorporate and MR. Jones has to give
attention to the term and condition.
c. The complainant, who was unable to understand, had a trip ticket drawn by her niece on the
front of which the terms "Excursion. For requirements to check the back of the ticket " were
written; and on the back there was a note says that the ticket was given according to the
requirements in the time tables and trip charges of the defendant company, trip tickets is
reported to be given according to the terms set out in the company's current schedules.
d. The schedules, which might be gained for six pence each, stated, trip tickets are granted
basis to the standard rules as well as to the circumstance that the purchasers, have no legal
protections of action towards the company in particular regard of accident fatal or anything
else but caused.
e. A special jury decided that the incident to the defendant on the trip enclosed by the trip had
occurred, to order to avoid the lawsuit from going back to a new trial, the jury was
questioned whether the defendant corporation had taken appropriate action to bring the
provisions to the claimant's attention and replied ' Yes ' and given the verdict.

f. Statement was then allowed to determine whether the jury was in a position to do so, and it
was held that, as a matter of law, whenever the ticket was approved, the contract was
complete, and therefore there was no evidence on which the jury could find the following1.
g. It’s also ruled that the problem posed to the jury, for ease of fair notice needed to be
decided.
h. On the grounds of the statute relevant to the circumstances, under which the ticket was
given and Whether such provisions needed negatively influenced the claimant's ability to
seek damages. 2
Submission
it can be summarised that there is contract made between saga ltd and Mr jones. this can be stated
when Mr jones received ticket of car parking from machine. so, in that all terms and conditions were
mentioned and incorporated into contract. however, as per contract law, when contract is accepted
then all terms and condition mentioned in it are applied and incorporated. thus, both parties agree
to that.
1. Contract law
The contract law 1999 state that there is agreement made between two parties who are bound to
follow the terms and conditions mentioned in it. also, those T&S are automatically incorporated
when contract is made between them. also, there are many elements in it which is to be adhered in
it. the contract is legally enforced by law. likewise when Mr jones received ticket of parking as he
parked his car then a contract was enforced between Mr jones and Saga ltd.
2. Incorporation of terms and conditions
it is evaluated that when contract is made the terms and conditions in it are automatically applied. it
means that they are incorporated into it. also, there is no change in those terms and condition after
contract is made. similarly, in this case there was some T&C which was included within contract by
saga ltd. but Mr jones did not read those terms and conditions. they were mentioned in ticket and
on website of company. the terms stated that Saga ltd is not liable for any damage done to car and
parking is based on owner risk. thus, those terms are incorporated into contract made.
3. No reading of terms and conditions
from case it is identified that Mr jones was parking his car in saga ltd for many times. so he must be
aware about the terms and conditions printed on ticket and on website. but he was not aware of it
and when he parked his car on 28 December 2019 there was collapse of concrete pillar. thus, saga
ltd is not liable for any claim this is because in terms and condition it is clearly mentioned that they
exclude all liability and damage done to car owners. also, T&C are incorporated in a contract. so,
saga ltd is not liable for any damage done to Mr jones car. however, he has to pay charge fee of 10
days that is € 500 to company.
1
2

The Issues:
i. MR. Jones has no right to claim for damage of his Car because of his negligent that for his
keeping his car in the carparking for ten days and this was clearly on the terms and condition
of the Saga Company.
j. The suit was initiated by Mrs Mary Elizabeth Thompson against the defendant corporation
for damages arising from injury caused by her supposed incompetence on the part of the
defendant company's servants.
k. The following declaration of evidence were drawn from the opinion of the Clerk of the Rolls:
"Mrs. Thompson went to the railway station with two other people, the other two being her
daughter and sister, Miss Alcroft, on January 21, 1928, and she was a passenger on the train
from Manchester to Darwen, the train arriving at Darwen at around 10 p.m. at night.
l. There is also no doubt whether this lady was transported on a trip ship. It is a trip train,
presumably operated by the claimant corporation too several days a week for some months
of the year among Darwen and Manchester and Manchester and Darwen. The excursion
train runs on conditions of much smaller charges to travellers than those paid for ordinary
travel.
m. Trip trains are not part of their usual operation of trains on certain times and special events
except on different terms as to the speed. There is some proof of how the lady came to fly.
She states in her testimony that she did not read; she charged Miss Alcroft, who was one of
the party's ladies, the amount that was needed, and Miss Alcroft states that (this is the
educated Commissioner's note):
n. I took tickets- half- trips to Manchester 2s. It's 7d. They're both from Darwen to Liverpool
and back to Darwen in London. The price of 2s now. It's 7d. Both of them is only one- of
what will be paid as the usual fare for the volume of train travel between Darwen and
Manchester and back from Manchester to Darwen. At the point, she stated little regarding
handbills and nothing about circumstances.
3
o. So she saw no handbill, although on a cross, she claimed her father had been to see
whether there were excursion trains, so there is in the facts (according to a notice that was
very rational and quite reasonably accepted by junior counsel in the case) this argument,
which does not make its way into the conde.
p. This fact, because it was an excursion train with a specific arrangement, must be kept in
mind; and there are a variety of situations where, if you may not bear this in mind, may be
deemed to be applicable and applied in the contrary way of the present case. And example,
3

when it comes of Parker v. South Eastern Ry. Co, it must be noted as to the situation under
terms and condition which the company has no liability to pay him for his car damage,
q. In view of the normal and usual course of business, it seems to be fair that an individual who
receives such a ticket as this would treat it as a pure voucher 50 for delivery of the shipment
deposited and as a way of marking it as the owner as he tries to redeem it, and, in that
context, not having any exceptional circumstance to which his attention should be drawn.
r. The remarks correctly alluded to by Mr. Goldie, raised by Lord Haldane in Hood v. Anchor
Line (Henderson Brothers) 20, came in a situation where the issue of the truth was free only
to be determined by the judge, so where the problem is if there is proof to justify the
conclusions of the truth, it is a matter of rule, so we will give substance to the rule. There is
no point about the fact that the jurors addressed the query posed to them in favour of the
appellant, since it was odious to bring the query to them.
s. Now, it seems to me that this issue is clearly dealt with in the judgement given by Stephen J,
in which he stated: The only problem that may be raised is whether to give a man a written
paper simply specifying the conditions under which a repository owner is able to allow a
carriage for sale on contract is or is not equal to ask4.
Conclusion:
4
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT JUSTICE PRYCE BETWEEN: 1)
All the relevant statements were incorporated as terms of the contract between Mr Jones and Saga Ltd and 2)
As a matter of construction, the terms of the contract excluded Saga’s liability for negligence and entitled Saga
Ltd. to charge £50 per day for late collection of any vehicle. Mr Jones now appeals on the following grounds: 1)

For all these statements above, it is identified that there is contract made between Mr jones and
Saga ltd. so, in that all terms and conditions are included in it. but Mr Jones is not liable to claim for
damage because he did not read terms and conditions in contract. thus, when contract is made all
terms and conditions are incorporated into it.
However, Mr jones wants to claim for damage done as he appeals that terms are not
incorporated.
The respondent submits that with respectfully request your lordships deny this appeal and
dismissed it.
Mr. Jones
South avenue
Birmingham, UK.
12/8/2020