Firstly, forgive me, I am not a law student but am a prospective career changer considering a career in law and hence watching tutorials online to get an idea of whether it really is for me...
One of the tutorials was talking about exclusion clauses and there was a case where someone had been injured in a car park and sought damages due to negligence. There was a clause stating the car park owner accepts no responsibility for injury as a result of negligence.
Nowadays such a clause isn't allowed, but ignoring that as at the time it was...
The court's decision was that the defendant was liable for damages as the contract was accepted when the claimant put money into the machine for a ticket, and it was only then that the ticket informed them that parking was subject to terms and conditions displayed within the car park.
That makes sense, but my question is, am I right in thinking that had the claimant used the car park before under the same terms the claim would be rejected on the basis of the term being incorporated through previous dealings?
Turn on thread page Beta
Contract law - Previous dealings question. watch
- Thread Starter
Last edited by montyr; 03-10-2017 at 13:06.
- 03-10-2017 13:04
- 03-10-2017 15:57
It would depend upon the term. If it "goes without saying", and it is fair and reasonable to impose the term on the contract, then the courts will do so.
There is a string of cases which slowly elucidates this argument, but it's hardly worth going in to right now.