Plaintiff drove into Defendant’s car park and parked.
There were clauses written on the back of the ticket, not capable of being viewed before entering the car park (and paying for a ticket), stating that the car park would not be liable for injury to users caused by Defendant.
Defendant’s negligence led to a car crash in which Plaintiff was injured and he sued Defendant.
CA allowed Plaintiff’s claim.
The contract has already been formed by the time that the tickets are dispensed so any terms written on them are meaningless.
The only way a Plaintiff could be bound, is if he knows, or Defendant gave reasonably sufficient notice, that the ticket would be issued subject to a certain type of condition e.g. “exemption condition” (simply stating “subject to conditions” is inadequate since Plaintiff might consider that these would be mere regulatory conditions).
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 StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Contract Law | Exclusion Clauses Notes (21 pages) |