This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programmes [1988] 1 All ER 348

By Oxbridge Law TeamUpdated 04/01/2024 07:00

Judgement for the case Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programmes

KEY POINTS

  • In situations where a condition is particularly onerous or unusual, the party imposing such terms must demonstrate that the other party was aware of the condition and had fair notice of its existence. This means that the term must be "fairly brought to the recipient's attention" for it to be binding on the other party.

FACTS

  • The plaintiffs, a library of photographic transparencies, provided 47 transparencies to the defendants, who were engaged in advertising, for a client's presentation. The defendants did not use the transparencies and failed to return them within the specified time.

  • The plaintiffs invoiced the defendants for a holding charge of £3,783.50 as per their conditions, which included a charge of £5 per day per transparency for any retention beyond 14 days. The defendants refused to pay the invoice, leading to the plaintiffs initiating legal action.

  • The plaintiffs' claim was based on the conditions printed on the delivery note, which included condition 2 specifying the holding charge for the delayed return of transparencies. The defendants argued that they never received the delivery note, but the court found that it was indeed supplied with the transparencies in the same jiffy bag.

  • The issue central to this case is the validity of the clause.

COMMENTARY

  • This case emphasises the importance of transparency and fairness in contractual agreements.

  • It sets a precedent for ensuring that parties are fully aware of any unusually harsh or burdensome terms before they can be held bound by them.

  • Businesses and individuals should take note of this principle when drafting contracts to avoid potential disputes over the enforceability of onerous terms.

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

  • Defendants rented certain photos from Plaintiff. Plaintiff, upon delivery, also included a delivery note in the bag, which was unlikely to draw any attention. In fact it included with terms and conditions, one of which set out the large amounts payable by Defendant in the case of late return.

  • When Defendant was ordered to pay this (£3,800 for 10 days overdue), it refused and Plaintiff sued Defendant.

  • CA denied Plaintiff’s claim. 

Dillon LJ

  • Thornton is NOT confined to cases of exemption clauses.

  • He recognises that people tend not to read terms and conditions or have time to do so.

  • Therefore it is logical that where a condition is particularly onerous or unusual, the party imposing terms must prove that it was “fairly brought to the recipient’s attention” in order to enforce it. 

Bingham LJ

  • The “sufficiency of notice cases [above]” are an attempt to get round England’s lack of a “good faith” principle.

  • He agrees with Dillon LJ’s reasoning. He says that these cases are not just, therefore, about conceptual analysis, but “at another level they are concerned with…whether it would, in all the circumstances, be fair (or reasonable) to hold a party bound by any conditions or by a particular condition of an unusual and stringent nature.”

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

For Further Study on Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programmes

Contract Law Notes
1,511 total pages
744 purchased

Contract law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...

Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.

Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️

Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.

Get Started
Claim every advantage to get a first in law
Contract Law Notes
1,511 total pages
744 purchased

Contract law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...