As regards ‘reasonable notice’, the decision from which most of the law ultimately derives is Parker v South Eastern Railway. The plaintiff deposited his bag in the cloakroom at the defendant’s station. He paid 2 d and was given a ticket, on the face of which was printed the times at which the cloakroom was open and the words ‘see back’. On the back was a clause stating that the company would not be responsible for any package exceeding the value of £10, and a placard to the same effect was hung in the cloakroom. The bag, which was worth more than £10, was lost or stolen, and the plaintiff claimed its value. The trial judge left two questions to the jury: (1) did the plaintiff read, or was he aware of, the special condition upon which the article was deposited?; (2) was the plaintiff, under the circumstances, under any obligation, in the exercise of reasonable and proper caution, to read or make himself aware of the condition? The jury answered both questions in the negative, and the judgment was directed for the plaintiff: Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877) 2 CPD 416, CA, p 422

doi:10.4324/9781843141518-43

Chapter

No Image Available

Chapter

As regards ‘reasonable notice’, the decision from which most of the law ultimately derives is Parker v South Eastern Railway. The plaintiff deposited his bag in the cloakroom at the defendant’s station. He paid 2 d and was given a ticket, on the face of which was printed the times at which the cloakroom was open and the words ‘see back’. On the back was a clause stating that the company would not be responsible for any package exceeding the value of £10, and a placard to the same effect was hung in the cloakroom. The bag, which was worth more than £10, was lost or stolen, and the plaintiff claimed its value. The trial judge left two questions to the jury: (1) did the plaintiff read, or was he aware of, the special condition upon which the article was deposited?; (2) was the plaintiff, under the circumstances, under any obligation, in the exercise of reasonable and proper caution, to read or make himself aware of the condition? The jury answered both questions in the negative, and the judgment was directed for the plaintiff: Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877) 2 CPD 416, CA, p 422

ABSTRACT

Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877) 2 CPD 416, CA, p 422 Mellish LJ: The question then is whether the plaintiff was bound by the conditions contained in the ticket. In an ordinary case, where an action is brought on a written agreement which is signed by the defendant, the agreement is proved by proving his signature, and, in the absence of fraud, it is wholly immaterial that he has not read the material and does not know its contents. The parties may, however, reduce their agreement into writing, so that the writing constitutes the sole evidence of the agreement, without signing it; but in that case there must be evidence independently of the agreement itself to prove that the defendant has assented to it. In that case, also, if it is proved that the defendant has assented to the writing constituting the agreement between the parties, it is, in the absence of fraud, immaterial that the defendant had not read the agreement and did not know its contents. Now if in the course of making a contract one party delivers to another a paper containing writing, and the party receiving the paper knows that the paper contains conditions that the party delivering intends to constitute the contract, I have no doubt that the party receiving the paper does, by receiving and keeping it, assent to the conditions contained in it, although he does not read them, and does not know what they are ... If the person receiving the ticket does not know that there is any writing upon the back of the ticket, he is not bound by a condition printed on the back ... the plaintiffs admitted that they knew there was writing on the back of the ticket, [but] they swore not only that they did not read it, but that they did not know or believe that the writing contained conditions ...