Legal Analysis: Contract Law Issues for Andrew and Bob vs. NIS

This case study analyzes a scenario involving Andrew and Bob who sustained injuries at a concert held at the National Indore Stadium (NIS). The analysis focuses on the principles of contract law, particularly the formation of a contract through the purchase of tickets, the significance of terms and conditions (including conditions, warranties, and exclusion clauses), and the concept of breach of contract. The core issue revolves around whether the exclusion clause printed on the back of the tickets, which absolved NIS of liability for injuries, is enforceable. The analysis examines the requirements for incorporating exclusion clauses, including providing reasonable notice. It considers whether Andrew and Bob had sufficient notice of the terms and conditions, given the presence of posters at the ticket counter. The case study references relevant legal precedents, such as Parker v. SE Railway Co and Olley v. Marlborough Court, to determine if the exclusion clause is valid and whether Andrew and Bob have grounds for legal action against NIS for breach of contract. The conclusion supports that Andrew and Bob have grounds to sue NIS due to breach of essential contractual terms and failure to provide adequate notice of the exclusion clause.

Issue
Whether Andrew and Bob can initiate any legal action against National Indore Stadium
Rules
A contract is an agreement between two or more parties, the terms of which
affects the respective rights and obligations of the parties to the contract, which are
enforceable in the court of law. The rights and obligations of contracting parties are
determined by establishing the terms and interpreting such terms (Poole 2016). After
determining the contract, the court applies the objective test for interpreting the meaning
of such terms.
The terms of a contract includes warranties, conditions or innominate
(intermediate) terms. It is essential to classify the terms to determine, in the event of a
breach of the contract, whether the innocent party may discharge or terminate the
contract. Conditions, warranties and other innominate terms are three essential terms of
the contract, but the level of significance of these categories differs with conditions
being the most important contractual terms and warranties being the least important
contractual terms.
Condition refers to the terms that the parties to the contract must perform as
they are essential terms. If a party fails to perform a condition, the other party is entitled
to cease the contract. When a breach of a condition is established, the innocent party
may both cease the contract and initiate legal proceedings against the breaching party
or the innocent party continues to perform his/her contractual obligations but claim
damages. The party may pursue other remedies against the infringing party such as
specific performance or injunctions (McKendrick 2014).
A warranty refers to the terms that are considered as less important terms of the
contract. In case of a breach of warranty, the innocent party may claim damages for the
loss suffered but the party is not permitted to end the contract.

Innominate terms are contractual terms which, if is considered as an important
term, the breach of which would be so serious that it might deprive the innocent party of
the entire benefit that he was entitled to receive from the contract, the innocent party
may terminate the contract (Poole 2016). If the term is considered as less important
term, the breach of which shall not deprive the innocent party of the benefits that he was
entitled to receive from the contract, the innocent party may not end the contract. The
party may claim damages for the loss suffered and obtain other remedies such as
specific performance.
There is another form of contractual terms in a contract, which is known as the
exclusion clause that aims at exempting a contractual party of his liabilities. In
Singapore, the exclusion clause is incorporated in the Unfair Contract Terms Act
(UCTA). The exclusion clause may be incorporated in the unsigned documents such as
notice or a ticket. Under such circumstances, sufficient and reasonable notice of the
existence of the exclusion clause should be provided. There are three essential
requirements that fulfill this requirement, which are as follows:
a) The clause must be provided in the contractual document that is, a document
where any prudent person would assume to include contractual terms as was
held in Parker v SE Railway Co [1877] 2 CPD 416 and Chappleton v Barry
UDC [1940].
b) The existence of the exclusion clause must be brought to the knowledge of the
other party before or at the time when the person is entering into a contract as
was ruled in Olley v Marlborough Court [1949] 1 KB 532;
c) Reasonably sufficient notice of the clause must be provided and actual notice is
not required as was observed in the Thompson v LMS Railway [1930] 1 KB
41;
In contract law, there is a common proposition that once a ticket or document is
handed to a ticket and the person retains the same, it is considered that such person is
bound by the terms of the ticket (Hunter 2017). It is immaterial whether such person has
read the terms or not as the ticket becomes equivalent to a signed document. However,
in McCutchon v MacBrayne [1964] 1 WLR 125, it was held that where there has been

previous and consistent course of dealing between the contractual parties on the same
terms, the exclusion clause may e incorporated.
However, in Parker v the South Eastern Railway Co [1877], there has been the
exclusion clause has been subjected to two essential restrictions. Firstly, if the recipient
of the ticket is aware of the fact that there were some writings on the ticket and was also
acknowledged with the terms and conditions incorporated in the ticket, the recipient
shall become bound by such terms of eh contract. Secondly, in case the recipient as not
aware of the fact that there were terms and conditions written on the ticket, the court
shall determine whether a reasonable person would have been aware of such terms
and conditions on the ticket.
Application
On the facts here, Andrew and Bob went to the ticket counter where they were
handed over with the ticket to the concert. While they were at the counter, they notice
some yellow posters stuck to the side of the counter and Andrew noticed ‘terms and
conditions’ but did not think to check out the posters.
On the day of concert, the security of the venue (NIS) was ineffective due to
ineffective security personnel. Suddenly, a group of fans rushed forward in an attempt to
get closer to the band. The fans ended up pushing some of the persons who were
present in the concert. Andrew and Bob were some of them who were pushed by the
group of fans and consequently, they sustained physical injuries on their faces and
elbows.
However, after the concert they noticed on the back of their concert tickets where
neither NIS nor the Promoter shall take responsibility or accept any liability for any form
of injuries. NIS or the promoter shall not be liable for any personal injuries or accidents
that may arise during the event or due to the negligence on part of the promoter or NIS,
the ticket holder attending the event shall be responsible for the same.
In the given scenario, the ticket holder should have informed Andrew and Bob
about the terms and conditions that was written at the back of the ticket as it is an

exclusion clause. As stated in Olley v Marlborough Court [1949], the existence of the
exclusion clause must be informed to other party before or at the time when the person
is entering into a contract.
Further, in Parker v the South Eastern Railway Co [1877], there is a restriction
that in case the recipient is unaware of the terms and conditions written on the ticket,
the court shall determine whether a reasonable person would have been aware of such
terms and conditions on the ticket. Andrew and Bob noticed the posters at the side of
the counter where he saw ‘terms and conditions’ but since there have not been previous
and consistent course of dealing between them and the ticker holder, it was his
responsibility to acknowledge them about the terms and conditions that were written at
the back of the ticket. Furthermore, the terms written at the back of the ticker was
essential term amounting to condition, the breach of which shall entitle the innocent
party to claim damages for the injuries sustained due to such breach.
Conclusion
Hence, Andrew and Bob are entitled to bring legal action against NIS on the
ground of breach of essential contractual terms and failing to acknowledge them with
the exclusion clause.

Reference list
Chappleton v Barry UDC [1940].
Hunter, H., 2017. Modern Law of Contracts.
McCutchon v MacBrayne [1964] 1 WLR 125
McKendrick, E., 2014. Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press
(UK).
Olley v Marlborough Court [1949] 1 KB 532
Parker v SE Railway Co [1877] 2 CPD 416 and Chappleton v Barry UDC [1940].
Poole, J., 2016. Textbook on contract law. Oxford University Press.
Thompson v LMS Railway [1930] 1 KB 41;