Standard Form Contracts Introduction: Conract of adhesion - which means that the individual has no choice but to accept

it; he does not negotiate, but merely adheres, - compulsory contracts Boilerplate contracts LIC, Airport taxi, etc. eg. Railway administration of India has to make innumerable contracts of carriage. Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking Ltd (1971) 1 All ER 66 CA Lord Denning MR pointed out :- No customer in a thousand ever read the conditions. If he had stopped to do so, he would have missed the train or the boat.

Exploitation of weaker party. L ' Estrange v. Graucob Ltd. (1934) All ER Rep 16 Mrs L signed an agreement without reading it under which she purchased a cigarette vending machine. The agreement excluded liability for all kinds of defect in the machine. the machine was totally defective. The court foun it as a fact that the supplier had made no effort to bring the sweeping exemption term to the notice of Mrs L. Even so the court held: Where a document containing contractual terms is signed, then, in the absence of fraud, or misrepresentation, the party signing it is bound, and it is wholly immaterial whether he has read the document or not. Protective devices 1) Reasonable Notice 2) Notice should be contemporaneous with contract 3) Theory of fundamental breach 4) Strict Construction 5) Liability in torts 6) Unreasonable terms 7) Exemption clauses and third parties 1) Reasonable Notice Henderson v. Stevenson (1875) 32 LT 709 The plaintiff bought a steamer ticket on the face of which were these words only " Dublin to Whitehaven"; on the back were printed certain conditions on of which excluded the liability of the company for loss, injury or delay to the passenger or his luggage. The plaintiff had not seen the back of the ticket, nor was there any indication of the face about the condition on the back. the plaintiff's luggage was lost in the shipwreck caused by the fault of the company's servants. he was held entitled to recover his loss from the company in spite of th exemption clauses. "for conditions see back"

Parker v. South Eastern Rly Co. (1877) 2 CPD 416 The plaintiff deposited his bag at the cloakroom at a railway station and received a ticket. On the face of the ticket were printed, among other things, the words, "see back" and on the back there was a notice that "the company will not be responsible for any package exceeding the value of 10 pounds." A notice to the same effect was also hung up in the cloackroom. Mellish LJ pointed out that if the plaintiff "Knew there was writing on the ticket, but he did not know or believe that the writing contained conditions, nevertheless he would be bound. A folded up ticket was handed over to a passenger and the conditions printed on it were also obliterated in part by a stamp in red ink and where in another case, words on a ticket, "For conditions see back", were obliterated by the date stamp. Conditions printed in other language: Mackillican v. Compagnie Des Messageries Maritimes De Frace, ILR (1880) 6 Cal 227 at p. 234 the plaintiff accepted a steamer ticket containing conditions printed in the French language. He claimed that he was not bound by them, being unable to read French. Garth CJ said: " Although he may not understand French, he was a man of business contracting with a French company, whose tickets he knew very well were written in the French Language. He had ample time and means to get the tickets explained and translated to him before he went on board; Difference between Contractual Documents and Receipts, etc A document is said to be contractual if if embodies the contract, that is to say, if the persons to whom it is delivered should know that it is supposed to contain conditions. But where the paper is not supposed to express the conditions of the contract, it will be regarded as a mere voucher etc., and extra care will have to be taken to communicate it terms than mere warning on the face. Chapelton v. Barry Urban Distt Council (1940) 1 KB 532 The plaintiff went on to a beach and hired two chairs from a pile of deck chairs belonging to the defendant Council. He received two tickets from the attendant, glanced at them, and slipped them into his pocket. While he was sitting on one of the chair, he had the misfortune to go through the canvas with the result that he suffered injury. Tickets carried the words; "The Council will not be liable for any accident or damage arising from hire of chairs". He said that he had no idea that there were any conditions on these tickets and that he did not know anything about what was on the back of them. The coucil was held liable for his injury. Effect of misreprentation Curtis v. Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co. (1951) 1 KB 805 The plaintiff delivered a white satin wedding dress to the defendants for cleaning. On being asked to sign a receipt, she inquired why she was to sign it and was told that she was to take

responsibility for any damage to beads and sequins. The pliantiff then signed the receipt without reading it. the receipt, in fact, contained a condition excluding liability for any damage howsoever caused. when the dress was returned there was a stain on it. To the plaintiff's action for damages, the cleaners pleaded the exemption clause. But they were held liable. Tilden Rent - A - Car v. Clendenning (1978) 83 DLR (3d) 400 Ont CA The Plaintiff signed a motor car insurance document which carried a warning on the face that no liability would arise if the provisions wer not observed. On the back there were terms in fine and faint print one of which was that there would be no liability of the driver had taken any drink. the dirver who caused the accident testified that though he had consumed some alcohol, he was not intoxicated and was capable of controlling the vehicle. Holding the company to be liable, the court said that a signature can be relied on as manifesting assent to a document when it is reasonable for the party relying on the signed document to believe that the signer really did assent to tis contents. Hence the plaintiff was not bound by unusual and onerous printed terms which were not drawn to his attention. Notice of Unusual terms Interphoto Library v. Stifleto Visual Programmes (1988) 1 All ER 348