Introducing
Prezi AI.
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
Loading content…
Loading…
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd
36
Transcript
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd
Brief Facts
On the ticket was printed :
- the time of issue
- a statement that the ticket is issued subject to the conditions posted in the parking lot
The conditions were posted in :
- the office where you had to pay upon departure, and
- on the wall opposite the ticket machine
The condition included:
- exempting SLP from any liability for injury caused to the customer
Offer and Acceptance
Principle
1. Whether the defendant can escape liability by reason of exempting condition?
2. Whether the ticket issued automatically by the automatic ticket machine matter?
LEGAL ISSUES
PLAINTIFF
- Plaintiff believed that the defendant were at fault for the injury that he suffered.
- Plaintiff said that he looked at the ticket to see the time on it before putting the ticket in his pocket. Although he could see the printing on the ticket, he did not read it. Therefore, he did not realized the words which said the ticket which said that the ticket was issued subject to the conditions as displayed on the premise.
Arguments
DEFENDANT
- Defendants appealed on the ground that the exempting condition protected them from any form of liability.
- Defendants claimed that the ticket issued to the plaintiff was a contractual document and it integrated a condition which exempts them from a liability to him.
- 1.The SLP were not able to avoid liability because the exempting condition had not been successfully incorporated in the contract
- Thornton is only by the condition only
- 1. he knew the ticket is issued subject to it
- 2. SLP did was reasonably sufficient to give him notice about it.
Judgement
Refer case
Mendelssohn v Normand Ltd:
Not bound together
Watkins v Rymill
Thompson v London
2. The ticket is issued automatically by the machine and not from a clerk.
- Thornton had no chance to look at the conditions, reject them and get the money back.
- The SLP using the automatic machine with the price stated and the offer is accepted when Thornton pulled out the ticket.
- Thornton was not bound by any terms and conditions that are presented after the process of Offer and Acceptance.
Commentary
Agreed with the trial judge held.
Even though SLP claimed that they were protected by the exempting condition but;
- they failed to prove that Thornton knew the condition that imposed to him before he accepted the ticket.
- They failed to prove that SLP had given sufficient notice to Thornton regarding the condition.
In Islam emphasize the importance of justice and honesty in dealing with people especially in making a contract.
- two parties agreed with the condition that they made. Must be clearin order to avoid misunderstanding.
- and it must have IJAB(Offer) and Qabul (Acceptance),this called Aqad
Choose a template
Presentations from around the world
Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi