UCTA

Incorporation by signature:
LEstrange V Graucob {cigarette vending machine case}, where
the claimant signed the document containing the exclusion clause excluding liability for the condition of the machine, therefore the clause was said to have been effectively incorporated and the def. was not liable.

Curtis V Chemical cleaning and dyeing co. {wedding dress for cleaning}, here the claimant took her wedding dress to be cleaned and was
asked to sign a document, which when she questioned she was told was a document that would exclude liability for the sequins and beads on the dress, when she returned to collect the dress she found a stain on the dress and sued the co., who relied on the exclusion clause stating that there was no liability for damage howsoever arising, but the courts held the co. liable as the statement made to the claimant about the beads misrepresented the effect of the clause.

Incorporation by reasonable notice:

Parker V South Eastern Railway {cloak room case}, where the
claimant left his bag worth 24 pounds in the cloak room, after paying the fee of 2d, he was then handed over a ticket which stated the opening times and such on the front, with the words see back, and then written behind was a limitation clause, restricting the railways co.s liability for lost property to 10 pounds, thus the courts held that this clause was reasonably incorporated, and when the claimant sued for 24 pounds worth of his bag lost, the courts held that the co. was only liable to pay him 10 pounds.

Time of notice Olley V Marlborough court Ltd - {fur courts}, in this case the
claimant had her fur coats stolen from the hotel room, and the hotel held that they were not liable as a result of the exclusion clause printed on the wall of the hotel room, however the courts held that the contract was concluded at the reception desk, thus the notice of this exclusion clause came too late, and the hotel was held liable.

Thornton V Shoe Lane Parking {car park}, here the claimant after
parking his car he found the car to be damaged when he came to collect it, the car park owner stated that they were not liable as a result of the ticket indicating the signs all over the premises that indicated no liability will be accepted for damage to property or personal injury, however the courts held that the notice as having come too late, as the contract was already formed before the ticket containing the clause was printed.

Form of notice Chapelton v Barry UDC - {deck chairs}, here the claimant ordered two
chairs, and when he sat on the chair it broke injuring him, he then sued the local council, who relied on the exemption clause printed on the ticket to escape liability, but the courts held that the ticket in this case acted like a mere receipt, and a reasonable person would not expect it to contain contractual terms, thus the local council was held liable.

Sugar V LMS Railway in this case the ticket that stated the contractual
terms detailing the exclusion clause, was covered by the date stamp, thus the courts held that reasonable notice was not brought to the attention the claimant.

Effect of the clause Interphoto Picture Library Ltd. V Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd. - {borrow photos}, here the courts held that a 5 pound charge per
photo per day was a highly onerous clause, thus special attention of this clause should have been brought to the attention of the defendant, thus the plaintiff was only able claim 3.50 per week for each photo returned late, as this being a reasonable sum based on quantum merit.

OBrien V MGN Ltd. - {daily Mirror scratch card game}, here the
courts held that the rules laid down by the Daily Mirror were neither onerous or unusual, as it merely deprived the claimant of a windfall for which he had done very little in return, thus the courts were satisfied that the newspaper had taken the reasonable steps by referring to the rules of the game on the face of the card, thus the claim failed.

Incorporation by way of previous course of dealing:

Spurling V Bradshaw - {barrels of orange juice}, here the courts held
that the clause stating that the plaintiff was not liable for any loss or damage occasioned by the negligence or wrongful act by default of themselves or by the employees was incorporated into the contract by way of previous course of dealing, thus the def. was liable to pay the storage charges.

Hollier V Rambler (AMC) Ltd. - {car in the garage}, here the Court
of Appeal held that the clause stating that the co. was not responsible for damage caused by fire to customers cars on the premises, was not incorporated by previous course of dealing as this was insufficient for the inclusion of such a clause.

Common law control 2: Contra Proferntem rule

Houghton V Trafalgar Insurance Co. - {5 seated car}, here the car was insured but the insurance co. excluded liability where the car was carrying an excessive load, therefore the Court of Appeal held that the insurance co. was liable, as in this case the accident was caused as a result of the car carrying too many people rather too much weight which is taken as the interpretation of the term load.

Middleton V Wiggins - {waste}, here the Court of Appeal held that as the
accident had not occurred from the disposal of the waste, but from the unforeseen escape of gas resulting from the process of decomposition, the insurance company was liable to pay the damages, and could not rely on the exemption clause in the insurance policy which excluded liability for loss arising from the disposal of waste material.

Ailsa Craig Fishing Co. Ltd V Malvern Fishing Co Ltd and Securicor Ltd.
House of Lords stated that the limitation clauses are more likely to express the genuine interest of the parties and to be considered as part of the bargain rather than exclusion clauses, therefore Securicors reliance on the clause was upheld.

Special application of CPR

White V John Warrick & Co Ltd {hire of bicycle} here the plaintiffs were injured as a result of the defective bicycle provided by the defendants, the defendant escaped contractual liability as a result of the exclusion clause, but this could render the def. liable under negligence.

Alederslade v Hendon Laundry Ltd. - {laundering case}, here articles sent

for laundering were lost, and the court upheld the laundrys reliance on an exemption clause that excluded them from liability for lost and damaged articles. The court also held that such a clause did exempt them from responsibility for negligence, since there was no other way in which the wording could be interpreted. Rotterdamsche case fundamental breach