264:, 2 CPD 416, 423, subject to this qualification: Mellish LJ used the word "conditions" in the plural, whereas it would be more apt to use the word "condition" in the singular, as indeed the lord justice himself did on the next page. After all, the only condition that matters for this purpose is the exempting condition. It is no use telling the customer that the ticket is issued subject to some "conditions" or other, without more: for he may reasonably regard "conditions" in general as merely regulatory, and not as taking away his rights, unless the exempting condition is drawn specifically to his attention. (Alternatively, if the plural "conditions" is used, it would be better prefaced with the word "exempting," because the exempting conditions are the only conditions that matter for this purpose.) Telescoping the three questions, they come to this: the customer is bound by the exempting condition if he knows that the ticket is issued subject to it; or, if the company did what was reasonably sufficient to give him notice of it.
237:
was committed at the very moment when he put his money into the machine. The contract was concluded at that time. It can be translated into offer and acceptance in this way: the offer is made when the proprietor of the machine holds it out as being ready to receive the money. The acceptance takes place when the customer puts his money into the slot. The terms of the offer are contained in the notice placed on or near the machine stating what is offered for the money. The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice before-hand, but not otherwise. He is not bound by the terms printed on the ticket if they differ from the notice, because the ticket comes too late. The contract has already been made: see
253:
his car, turned the light from red to green, and the ticket was thrust at him. The contract was then concluded, and it could not be altered by any words printed on the ticket itself. In particular, it could not be altered so as to exempt the company from liability for personal injury due to their negligence.
236:
None of those cases has any application to a ticket which is issued by an automatic machine. The customer pays his money and gets a ticket. He cannot refuse it. He cannot get his money back. He may protest to the machine, even swear at it. But it will remain unmoved. He is committed beyond recall. He
205:
The important thing to notice is that the company seek by this condition to exempt themselves from liability, not only for damage to the car, but also for injury to the customer howsoever caused. The condition talks about insurance. It is well known that the customer is usually insured against damage
277:
But, although reasonable notice of it was not given, Mr. Machin said that this case came within the second question propounded by
Mellish LJ, namely that Mr. Thornton "knew or believed that the writing contained conditions." There was no finding to that effect. The burden was on the company to prove
267:
Mr. Machin admitted here that the company did not do what was reasonably sufficient to give Mr. Thornton notice of the exempting condition. That admission was properly made. I do not pause to inquire whether the exempting condition is void for unreasonableness. All I say is that it is so wide and so
221:
1 WLR 125. They were concerned with railways, steamships and cloakrooms where booking clerks issued tickets to customers who took them away without reading them. In those cases the issue of the ticket was regarded as an offer by the company. If the customer took it and retained it without objection,
311:
agreed with the onerous point, but reserved their opinions on where the contract was concluded. Furthermore, Sir Gordon distinguished this from the other ticket cases based upon the fact that a human clerk proffered the ticket and the buyer had the opportunity to say I do not like those conditions.
232:
1 KB 41, 47. These cases were based on the theory that the customer, on being handed the ticket, could refuse it and decline to enter into a contract on those terms. He could ask for his money back. That theory was, of course, a fiction. No customer in a thousand ever read the conditions. If he had
252:
In the present case the offer was contained in the notice at the entrance giving the charges for garaging and saying "at owner's risk," i.e., at the risk of the owner so far as damage to the car was concerned. The offer was accepted when Mr
Thornton drove up to the entrance and, by the movement of
296:
That case does not touch the present, where the whole question is whether the exempting condition formed part of the contract. I do not think it did. Mr. Thornton did not know of the condition, and the company did not do what was reasonably sufficient to give him notice of it.
206:
to the car. But he is not insured against damage to himself. If the condition is incorporated into the contract of parking, it means that Mr. Thornton will be unable to recover any damages for his personal injuries which were caused by the negligence of the company.
200:
held that the more onerous the clause, the better notice of it needed to be given. Moreover, the contract was already concluded when the ticket came out of the machine, and so any condition on it could not be incorporated in the contract.
113:
case. It provides a good example of the rule that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded, without reasonable notice before. Also, it was held that an automatic ticket machine was an offer, rather than an
289:, and was given a ticket which contained an exempting condition. There was no discussion as to whether the condition formed part of the contract. It was conceded that it did. That is shown by the report in the
256:
Assuming, however, that an automatic machine is a booking clerk in disguise – so that the old fashioned ticket cases still apply to it. We then have to go back to the three questions put by
268:
destructive of rights that the court should not hold any man bound by it unless it is drawn to his attention in the most explicit way. It is an instance of what I had in mind in
667:
The car park was situated below the
International Press Centre on Shoe Lane in central London. Both the car park and the International Press Centre were demolished during 2014.
638:
185:
Three hours later he had an accident before getting into his car. The car park operator argued that the judge should have held the matter regulated by this contract, not
582:
687:
274:
1 WLR 461, 466. In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it – or something equally startling.
134:
742:
228:
118:, that the insertion of money was an acceptance, therefore, specifically, any (additional) conditions on the ticket were post-acceptance and invalid.
278:
it, and they did not do so. Certainly there was no evidence that Mr. Thornton knew of this exempting condition. He is not, therefore, bound by it.
300:
I do not think the garage company can escape liability by reason of the exemption condition. I would, therefore, dismiss the appeal.
737:
538:
245:
727:
646:
460:
732:
606:
341:
243:
1 KB 532. The ticket is no more than a voucher or receipt for the money that has been paid (as in the deckchair case,
211:
293:
at p. 180. Yet the garage company were not entitled to rely on the exempting condition for the reasons there given.
217:
622:
130:
594:
554:
358:
239:
396:
41:
FRANCIS CHARLES WILLIAM THORNTON Plaintiff
Respondent and SHOE LANE PARKING LIMITED Defendants Appellants
722:
422:
568:
446:
197:
630:
512:
334:
270:
707:
498:
181:"injury to the Customer … howsoever that loss, misdelivery, damage or injury shall be caused".
614:
370:
177:
On the car park pillars near the paying office there was a list, one excluding liability for
150:
524:
327:
122:
110:
8:
173:"This ticket is issued subject to the conditions of issue as displayed on the premises".
115:
386:
158:
106:
59:
702:
572:
400:
249:
1 KB 532) on terms which have been offered and accepted before the ticket is issued.
558:
544:
502:
450:
528:
464:
121:
Although the case is important for these two propositions, today any exclusion of
434:
126:
74:
474:
410:
308:
257:
166:
82:
716:
486:
290:
286:
319:
304:
285:
1 QB 177. Mr. Mendelssohn parked his car in the
Cumberland Garage at
154:
146:
708:
General discussion on unread contract, section on 'failure to read'
78:
209:
We have been referred to the ticket cases of former times from
639:
Interfoto
Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd
233:
stopped to do so, he would have missed the train or the boat.
186:
162:
222:
his act was regarded as an acceptance of the offer: see
281:
Mr. Machin relied on a case in this court last year –
149:
of the highest quality", drove to the entrance of the
584:
Bates & Others v Post Office Ltd (Judgment No 3)
135:
Unfair Terms in
Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999
229:Thompson v London, Midland and Scottish Railway Co
714:
335:
342:
328:
743:Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases
540:Equitable Life Assurance Society v Hyman
349:
246:Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council
647:George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd
461:HIH Casualty Ltd v Chase Manhattan Bank
715:
607:Parker v South Eastern Railway Company
323:
157:, before attending a performance at
703:Full text of the decision at BAILII
129:by businesses is prohibited by the
94:Incorporation; offer and acceptance
13:
14:
754:
696:
262:Parker v South Eastern Railway Co
212:Parker v South Eastern Railway Co
383:Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd
218:McCutcheon v David MacBrayne Ltd
145:Francis Thornton, "a free lance
102:Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd
24:Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd
738:1970 in United Kingdom case law
623:Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel
728:English incorporation case law
680:
661:
131:Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
1:
733:English unfair terms case law
674:
595:Terms in English contract law
555:AG of Belize v Belize Telecom
240:Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd
423:Hartog v Colin & Shields
397:Interfoto Ltd v Stiletto Ltd
169:and parked his car. It said
165:. He took a ticket from the
7:
315:
226:(1833) 10 QBD 178, 188 and
192:
10:
759:
569:Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams
447:ICS Ltd v West Bromwich BS
359:L'Estrange v F Graucob Ltd
283:Mendelssohn v Normand Ltd.
631:J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw
592:
579:
565:
551:
535:
521:
513:Johnstone v Bloomsbury HA
509:
495:
483:
471:
457:
443:
431:
419:
407:
393:
387:[1970] EWCA Civ 2
379:
367:
355:
271:J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw
107:[1970] EWCA Civ 2
93:
88:
70:
65:
60:[1970] EWCA Civ 2
58:2 QB 163; 1 All ER 686;
54:
46:
36:
28:
23:
16:English contract law case
654:
140:
690:, accessed 18 July 2022
499:Mahmud and Malik v BCCI
302:
183:
175:
615:Chapelton v Barry UDC
371:Chapelton v Barry UDC
203:
179:
171:
151:multi-storey car park
525:Liverpool CC v Irwin
350:Contract terms cases
215:(1877) 2 CPD 416 to
123:negligence liability
111:English contract law
116:invitation to treat
723:Lord Denning cases
688:The London Law Map
478:(1766) 3 Burr 1905
414:(1871) LR 6 QB 597
83:Sir Gordon Willmer
601:
600:
98:
97:
750:
691:
684:
668:
665:
610:(1877) 2 CPD 416
585:
541:
344:
337:
330:
321:
320:
224:Watkins v Rymill
137:Sch 2, para(a).
66:Court membership
50:18 December 1970
21:
20:
758:
757:
753:
752:
751:
749:
748:
747:
713:
712:
699:
694:
685:
681:
677:
672:
671:
666:
662:
657:
602:
597:
588:
583:
575:
561:
547:
539:
531:
517:
505:
491:
490:(1889) 14 PD 64
479:
467:
453:
439:
435:Thake v Maurice
427:
415:
403:
389:
375:
363:
351:
348:
318:
198:Lord Denning MR
195:
143:
133:s 2(1) and the
127:personal injury
75:Lord Denning MR
32:Court of Appeal
17:
12:
11:
5:
756:
746:
745:
740:
735:
730:
725:
711:
710:
705:
698:
697:External links
695:
693:
692:
686:Woolfson, A.,
678:
676:
673:
670:
669:
659:
658:
656:
653:
652:
651:
643:
635:
627:
619:
611:
599:
598:
593:
590:
589:
580:
577:
576:
566:
563:
562:
552:
549:
548:
536:
533:
532:
522:
519:
518:
510:
507:
506:
496:
493:
492:
484:
481:
480:
475:Carter v Boehm
472:
469:
468:
458:
455:
454:
444:
441:
440:
432:
429:
428:
420:
417:
416:
411:Smith v Hughes
408:
405:
404:
394:
391:
390:
380:
377:
376:
368:
365:
364:
356:
353:
352:
347:
346:
339:
332:
324:
317:
314:
309:Gordon Willmer
194:
191:
167:ticket machine
161:Hall with the
142:
139:
96:
95:
91:
90:
86:
85:
72:
71:Judges sitting
68:
67:
63:
62:
56:
52:
51:
48:
44:
43:
38:
37:Full case name
34:
33:
30:
26:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
755:
744:
741:
739:
736:
734:
731:
729:
726:
724:
721:
720:
718:
709:
706:
704:
701:
700:
689:
683:
679:
664:
660:
649:
648:
644:
641:
640:
636:
633:
632:
628:
625:
624:
620:
617:
616:
612:
609:
608:
604:
603:
596:
591:
587:
586:
578:
574:
571:
570:
564:
560:
557:
556:
550:
546:
543:
542:
534:
530:
527:
526:
520:
515:
514:
508:
504:
501:
500:
494:
489:
488:
482:
477:
476:
470:
466:
463:
462:
456:
452:
449:
448:
442:
437:
436:
430:
425:
424:
418:
413:
412:
406:
402:
399:
398:
392:
388:
385:
384:
378:
373:
372:
366:
361:
360:
354:
345:
340:
338:
333:
331:
326:
325:
322:
313:
310:
306:
301:
298:
294:
292:
288:
284:
279:
275:
273:
272:
265:
263:
259:
254:
250:
248:
247:
242:
241:
234:
231:
230:
225:
220:
219:
214:
213:
207:
202:
199:
190:
188:
182:
178:
174:
170:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
138:
136:
132:
128:
124:
119:
117:
112:
109:is a leading
108:
104:
103:
92:
87:
84:
80:
76:
73:
69:
64:
61:
57:
53:
49:
45:
42:
39:
35:
31:
27:
22:
19:
682:
663:
645:
637:
629:
621:
613:
605:
581:
567:
553:
537:
523:
516:2 All ER 293
511:
497:
487:The Moorcock
485:
473:
459:
445:
433:
426:3 All ER 566
421:
409:
395:
382:
381:
369:
357:
303:
299:
295:
282:
280:
276:
269:
266:
261:
255:
251:
244:
238:
235:
227:
223:
216:
210:
208:
204:
196:
184:
180:
176:
172:
144:
120:
101:
100:
99:
40:
18:
291:Law Reports
287:Marble Arch
717:Categories
675:References
573:EWCA Civ 5
401:EWCA Civ 6
258:Mellish LJ
159:Farringdon
634:1 WLR 461
155:Shoe Lane
147:trumpeter
626:1 KB 532
618:1 KB 532
374:1 KB 532
362:2 KB 394
316:See also
307:and Sir
305:Megaw LJ
193:Judgment
89:Keywords
79:Megaw LJ
55:Citation
559:UKPC 10
545:UKHL 39
503:UKHL 23
451:UKHL 28
47:Decided
650:QB 284
642:QB 433
529:UKHL 1
465:UKHL 6
438:QB 644
655:Notes
141:Facts
105:
29:Court
187:tort
125:for
81:and
260:in
163:BBC
153:on
719::
189:.
77:,
343:e
336:t
329:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.