LawSolutions
Badges: 5
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
The question I have been tasked with is to advise someone on their legal authority.

A lady is in her train station.

She bought her ticket through inserting coins into an automatic machine, the machine then issued a ticket saying "issued subject to the company's conditions of carriage."

A sign displaying these conditions is normally displayed adjacent to the machine but was temporarily removed.

On her way to the train platform she see's the conditions. One stating
"The liability of the company or its servants for loss or damage is limited to the sum of £75."

The lady then boarded the train. When the train arrived at its destination, it was involved in a minor collision. The lady fell over, suffered injuries and her new camera worth £400 was damaged beyond repair.

Now I must advise the lady.

Looking at the Thompson v London Midland and Scottish Railway Co (1930) case, it seems very similar and the train company could rely on their clause.
Is this similar to use this as a case example? Meaning she can only claim for £75.

Any help will be great.

Thanks!
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
For a consumer, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 is the place to look. I presume you have been told to exclude this?

CRA answers the question. I would still talk about Thompson, i.e. "if CRA doesn't cover this, ...".

The difference between Thompson and the scenario: London had taken reasonable steps to inform the reasonable consumer. Thompson was blind and they couldn't be expected to caution everyone in every single circumstance. Here they did not take reasonable steps, as they removed the bloody sign.
Last edited by Notoriety; 2 years ago
0
reply
Broon1988
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
If, as stated above, the Consumers Right Act 2015 is excluded, and case law is to be used, then one to look at would be the classic case of Olley v Malborough Court Ltd [1949] 1 KB 532 where the claimant was successful in her case of negligence of a hotel.

Similar to this, the exclusion of liability was not indicated to the individual until after formation of the contract (in this case at the machine after purchasing the ticket) so it would be in the claimants benefit to persue her losses as the station removed any indication of exclusion visable to customers prior to using their service. If the Consumer Rights Act can be used to argue the case, you can find more on this under c. 50 of the act.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you give consent for uni's to contact your parent/trusted person in a mental health crisis?

Yes - my parent/carer (67)
33.5%
Yes - a trusted person (54)
27%
No (52)
26%
I'm not sure (27)
13.5%

Watched Threads

View All