The difficulty with the case is that although the court was unanimous in its decision (in effect, because the judge had misdirected the jury), there is clear divergence in opinion as to what the law should be; between Mellish LJ and Baggallay LJ on the one hand and Bramwell LJ on the other. The latter’s robust views on the need for parties to look after their own interests would seem to leave little scope for judicial intervention. In general, the law has developed more along the lines indicated by Mellish LJ. For example, the latter’s point that some tickets might reasonably be regarded as mere receipts was applied in Chapleton v Barry Urban District Council, in relation to the hire

doi:10.4324/9781843141518-44

Chapter

No Image Available

Chapter

The difficulty with the case is that although the court was unanimous in its decision (in effect, because the judge had misdirected the jury), there is clear divergence in opinion as to what the law should be; between Mellish LJ and Baggallay LJ on the one hand and Bramwell LJ on the other. The latter’s robust views on the need for parties to look after their own interests would seem to leave little scope for judicial intervention. In general, the law has developed more along the lines indicated by Mellish LJ. For example, the latter’s point that some tickets might reasonably be regarded as mere receipts was applied in Chapleton v Barry Urban District Council, in relation to the hire

ABSTRACT

The difficulty with the case is that although the court was unanimous in its decision (in effect, because the judge had misdirected the jury), there is clear divergence in opinion as to what the law should be; between Mellish LJ and Baggallay LJ on the one hand and Bramwell LJ on the other. The latter’s robust views on the need for parties to look after their own interests would seem to leave little scope for judicial intervention.73 In general, the law has developed more along the lines indicated by Mellish LJ. For example, the latter’s point that some tickets might reasonably be regarded as mere receipts was applied in Chapleton v Barry Urban District Council,74 in relation to the hire of a seaside deckchair.75 The linked question of reasonableness of notice has featured in numerous decisions, the courts taking a particularly hard line on any attempt to introduce into the equation subjective matters such as illiteracy or lack of experience (the ‘reasonable man’ in this context appears to be akin to a rather cautious lawyer!). Moreover, where standard terms are perceived by the courts to be in the public domain – their existence being a matter (supposedly) of common knowledge and experience, it may be very hard to argue that unawareness of the terms was reasonable. These points are illustrated in the notorious case of Thompson v London, Midland and Scottish Railway Co.76