Contract Law

Agreements to agree cannot be enforced without a mechanism.
Silence (something left out of a contract) is not as bad as an agreement to agree.  Blanks can be filled-in in various ways

Walford v. Miles
•    Addresses a question – whether an agreement to negotiate is enforceable
•    Is there such a thing as an enforceable agreement to negotiate?
•    An oral agreement is no less an agreement than a written one.
•    This case raises the collateral and no-less interesting question – what if an agreement is an agreement to negotiate in good faith (IGF)?
o    Is this distinguishable from an agreement to agree?
•    Express agreement to negotiate, but the pl says that there was an implicit agreement to negotiate IGF.
o    Good faith comes up in two contexts:
•    1) Performance of an already-existing contract – law will normally say that the business efficacy test, or the bystander test will lead to the conclusion that the parties did impliedly promise one another to fulfill duties of a contract IGF.
•    2)  Negotiation in good faith towards having a contract in the first place – the law balks at this.  Says that there is no source of this legal duty
•    In law, duties arise from something – legislation, agreements
•    Cannot locate the origin of a duty to negotiate in good faith.
•    However, what if someone agrees to negotiate IGF?
•    The law does not hold us to any promise to anyone unless that promise is contained within a contract (contract - something the law is prepared to recognize).
•    What is the origin of a duty to negotiate in good faith?
o    The House of Lords declines to impose such a duty
•    P 508 – an agreement to negotiate is no more enforceable than an agreement to agree – too uncertain.
•    Doesn’t help to add an implied promise to negotiate IGF.
•    Cannot translate a promise into an award of money, because do not know what they would have agreed, had they agreed.
•    Contract law presumes that ppl are not altruistic.
•    Presumes that ppl act as egoists – that we are selfish.  Dog-eat-dog, survival-of-the-fittest realm.
•    Presumes that the realm of contracts and the economy is one of warfare.  All’s fair (except lying).
•    P 507 (bottom) – American Jurisprudence tries hard to find an enforceable duty to negotiate in good faith.  Does not sway Lord Ackner.
o    Best endeavors – the law does recognize an obligation (when promised) to use best endeavors.
•    “I want to buy your land to build my shopping mall, but if I can’t get your land re-zoned, then I do not want to buy your land.”  The purchaser will typically enter into an agreement.  The vendor will promise the potential buying that it will use its best endeavors to carry out an application to re-zone the land.  Then, if the vendor of the land does not use best endeavors to procure rezoning
•    Courts, though will not judge whether someone has acted IGF, does involve itself in whether someone has used best endeavors – this is likely because this involves actual actions instead of intentions.
•    This sometimes looks like IGF, but is in fact distinguishable.
•    The parties have a contract, which calls on one of them to do something using best endeavors.
•    P 507 para 2 – “Apart from the absence of any term as to the duration of the collateral agreement, it contained no provision for the respondents to determine the negotiations, albeit that such a provision was essential.”
o    Often law preserves the original meaning of an English word, which in general parlance has changed its meaning.  This can be confusing.
o    “Several” – means in general parlance that there are 3 or more
•    In law, it retains its original meaning of individual – “Several states of the United States” means the individual states.
o    In this paragraph, “Determine” is used in this way.  Here, it means to terminate.

Empress Towers Ltd. v. Bank of Nova Scotia
•    Commercial lease, with renewal clause
o    Renewal clause is common for commercial leases, for stability of presence
o    Leases do, however, want to re-negotiate periodically, to adjust rent for inflation, rising property values, etc.
o    How to balance stability with this idea.
o    In this lease, allowed to do this every five years.
•    Whoever framed this final renewal left out a saving grace of the first renewal – the mechanism to determine the negotiation – an arbitrator.
•    If the words “as mutually agreed between the Landlord and the Tenant” were not in the agreement, the preceding words could be used as a mechanism to determine fair rent.  Could have called experts – likely realtors – to determine what the fair rent was in that neighborhood.
•    But, someone thought it would “sound nicer” to mention an agreement between the parties.  This was fatal.  Takes away all objectivity.  Parties do not typically agree straight-off.
•    Looks like an agreement to agree…
o    Is this in fact what the judges are saying?
o    Look at the first sentence of the case.
o    Distinguishable from Walford v. Miles.
o    An ordinary remedy at the end of a civil case is a legal remedy – money; damages
•    Here, Empress Towers seeking a writ of possession (a writ issued to recover the possession of land - Black’s)
•    Equitable remedy
•    It is discretionary – no one has a right to an equitable remedy – one has a claim.  Equity is not in the realm of rights.
•    Courts will deny an equitable remedy if one has misconducted oneself.
•    Must go to court with clean hands
•    Here, the landlord ultimately cannot have the writ of possession because it has not bargained towards the renewal terms IGF, so not with clean hands.
•    Exercises their discretion in denying the writ of possession.
•    Saying that the landlord failed to negotiate in good faith is not the same as saying that they had a duty to do so.

Canada Square Corp. Ltd.v. Versafood Services Ltd.
•    Here the problem is mostly that of things left out of a contract.
•    Interesting from the p.o.v. of a potential draftsperson.
o    A lawyer’s primary role is not to solve problems, but to prevent them.
•    Certain parts of the desired contract here were too uncertain to determine at that point.
o    The answer is to put in a formula to render the uncertain aspects certain.
o    If a formula is incongruous with the factors left to be determined, then an arbitration clause effectively does the the same thing.
•    Significant things left out of this agreement.
o    Did not specify what area was meant to be leased
o    When the lease was to commence
o    When rent due
•    Versafoods tried to use these as an excuse to get out of the contract.  Said the contract was too uncertain.
o    The real issue is not a legal issue.
•    When judge turns to a US authority (in contracts) one knows that the judge is looking for a slightly unorthodox precedent which will allow the judge to do something that our more conservative Canadian jurisprudence does not allow.
o    Says that the U.S. case law distinguishes between the primary issues of a contract, and subsidiary issues.
o    Says that while the parties have to have agreed up on the fundamental terms (which courts cannot fill in) a lesser issue on which there is silence can (with some hesitation) be filled in by courts.
•    Courts can infer that the parties intended a reasonable term if it is a subsidiary term.
•    Normally, at this point, the court stops and tells the parties they have to agree on something, which the court then endorses.
o    In paragraph 4, the California court refers to these ‘blanks’ as “minor”

*The winners in these cases are never fully compensated – the costs that are paid to the lawyers are never fully reimbursed.  This is likely an discouragement of litigation.

L.C.D.H. Audio Visual Ltd. v. I.S.T.S. Verbatim Ltd.

o    The would-be subcontractor sued and lost.
o    Again refers to the business world as Darwinian and dog-eat-dog

For next day, read down to end of first section of new syllabus.
Consideration section.

London Drugs
•    The bailor sueing the bailee in negligence (tort)
•    The most obvious way to invoke the contractual defence is to show that one is a party to the contract.
o    Must determine whether the employees were parties to the contract.
o    On what legal theory can we make the employees party to the contract?
•    3 standard routes:
•    assignment – wouldn’t work
•    agency – the most obvious route.  A claim that when the bailee entered into the contract with the bailor, it did so as an agent for the employees.
o    True that the employees would have to show that they gave consideration, but there would be nothing (theoretically) to stop the consideration of the bailee being shared by the employees – promising safety of the chattel.
o    If this was argued (we don’t know) the answer was likely that yes, it is poss. for the employer to contract on the behalf of the employees, (as well as itself), and for the consideration for both to be the same, but all depends on intention.
o    In this case, the court “must have” concluded (or perhaps was already clear to the lawyers) that it did not happen this way.
•    trust – would work, supposeing there was some factual basis to make the argument – again, intention.  Courts are reluctant to conclude that there is an agency or trust rel. without pos. evidence of intention.
o    This is because these arguments would get around many legal arguments.  It would, if acccepted easily, be a cure-all.
o    Could transform failed gifts (without delivery) into binding agreements by saying that the donor was agreeing to hold the gift in trust for the giftee.
o    Similarly, in the law of contrats could save many third parties from plight of third parties simply by making them parties – by saying that someone else entered into the contracts on their behalf.

•    3rd parties are non-parties.  They are usually helpless and hopeless.
o    In this case, the SCC changes their status – only in the employment context. (very important).
o    Ioccobucci puts much emphasis on the identity of interest between the employer and employee.
o    “relaxes” the rule.  Does not overthrow.
o    In order to relax the doctrine in this context, gives 2 criteria:
•    1)  Parties must have intended (either explicitly or implicitly) that the employees shold benefit from the limitation of liability clause.
•    Ioccobucci finds an implied intention.  This is not that they would be parties, but that despite not being parties, they may benefit from the clause – identity of interest
•    2)  Must be in the performace of their duties, and in performance of the duties contemplated by the contract.

Insurance issue:
•    Courts are aware that the provision
•    Charges the warehouse enterprise with a maximum liability of $40.
o    The warehouse is being charged a much lower premium because of this limitation of liability clause.
o    Places the onus on the bailor to obtain insurance coverage.
o    This provision is really about who has the burden of insuring.
o    It makes sense that the owner of the goods (who knows what’s in the crate, etc.) has the responsibility for insuring it.
•    Carriers have similar contracts.

What, in effet, is the bailor here trying to do?
•    Having benefitted from a low storage-rate, based on accepting the risk on itself, it is now trying to shift the responsibility back onto the bailee.
•    Trying to have it both ways.
•    The employees will not have insurance.
o    Many tort cases are in actuality about insurance.

Is this a good decision or a bad decision?
(in a tort-sense)
•    The real purpose of tort-law is to visit punishment on the tort-feasor, so as to force [them] to ‘clean up [their] act’
•    Hank and Dennis are off the hook…
•    Is this a flaw in the case?

Laing Property Corp. v. All Seasons Display Inc.
•    Not bailor-bailee (and bailee’s employees), but tenant-landlord (and landlord’s emloyees)
•    Contract in question is a lease.
•    Page 400 – Insurance clause.
o    The landlord wants to ensure that the tenant has insurance.  This ensures that if the tenant is a future tort-feasor, the landlord and other tenants can collect damages against them
o    Also in the landlord’s name so that benefits can be collected.
o    Also absolves the landlord from responsibility for any loss, damage, or expenses.
o    Waivor of subrogation.
•    Even if the landlord’s carelessness causes the mall to burn down, and the tenant’s insurance covers the tenant, and under common law the insurance company could sue the landlord for recovery, the tenant has waived this right.
•    The landlord’s employees’ negligence did cause the mall to burn down.
•    The tenant’s insurance company “sues everyone in sight”
o    Sues the landlord (fails), and also its employees.
•    In Greewood Shopping Plaze, the SCC denied the employees any rights under the mall’s contract with the tenant…
•    Here, the B.C. C.A. follows London Drugs as far as it can, and distinguishes Greenwood Shopping Plaza…
•    Greenwood:  Even though at the heard of both cases is a lease (and not a contract of bailment) and does not invoke employees, the B.C. C.A. says that in the lease here, it is a lease, but it has other services mentioned – says that the promotion services meant that the promotion service in question, which needed to be performed by employees (similar to services in London Drugs), meant that the employees were contemplated by the lease.
o    Then apply the two factors in London Drugs to relax the doctrin of privity vis-à-vis employees
o    Was there intention to include the employees?  Did they intend the waivor of subrogation to extend to the employees?
o    It is not express, so must look for implied intention
o    Page 404 – give the intellible basis for finding implied intention – para 99 & 100.
•    1)  Is there identity of interest between the employee and employer as to the performance of the employers’ contractual obligations?  Ie:  the services must be performed by the employee.
•    2)  Did the tenant, in entering into this contract, know that the services could only be performed by human employees?
o    Repeated at para. 115.
•    In all of these cases, the relaxation of the privity rule is for a defensive purpose.
o    It is to act as a shield for a third party.
o    In no case has the courts relaxed the privity rule to allow a third party to sue on a contract.
o    This would require contract.

Law Reform Act  http://www.gnb.ca/0062/pdf-acts/l-01-2.pdf
•    In a contract between A & B that promises a benefit to C, this says that C can sue on the A-B contract to which it is not a party.
•    A & B can prevent this if they say so in the contract.
o    4(1) – a person who is not a party to a contract, but who is intended to receive some peformance under it may enforce that performance by claim for damages or otherwise.
o    Here, can likely be express or implied.  If implied, would use the rule from Laing (or London Drugs).
o    4(3) – may change their contract, but if it causes any loss to C, and C has incurred expense or undertaken an obligation in the expectation of performance, C may recover loss from any party to the contract who ought to have known that the expenses would be or had been incurred or that the obligation had been or would be undertaken.
•    NB has briefly but substantially abolished the privity problem.
•    England’s approach, a few years later (page 411) also greatly abridged the privity problem, but took the opposite approach – did it in great detail instead of sweepingly.
o    This is only part of the English statute.
•    Not sure what effet this prosiion will ultimately have.  Relatively unlitigated as of yet – do not yet know its implications.

Review – Tuesday, 12:30 in 2A
Monday – also review.  Structured.

Privity

•    If C is a stranger to a contract between A & B, then C must fail legal action

•    In a contract between A & B in which C is a beneficiary, the A-B contract contemplates C.  C is still a third party, but not a stranger – is actually named in the agreement.
o    Beneficiary – the recipient of a benefit under the contract.
o    Our system of law treats the third-party beneficiary the same as the third-party stranger.
o    1861 case established this.
o    in earlier cases, C coud sue on the contract
o    once contract theory evolved, C became a victim of the quest for theoretical purity.

•    If A & B form a contract with A working as an agent for C, then C is not a mere third-party beneficiary.  C is a party.  A is not.
•    If A & B have a contract which has not yet been performed (any contract creates private rights – rights are property; choses in action), A has rights against B, and can, if A chooses, “alienate” their rights against B to another party.  Can sell or give incorporeal rights (assign).
o    C gains the rights to what A assigns C.
o    A-C contract.  A had rights under the A-B contract, but sold them to C = assignment.
o    Question:  What rights does C have under the A-B contract?  Suppose B breaks the promise – Can C sue?
•    Equity will allow C to sue B.
•    A is still in the original contract, but so is C.  C could sue B, but might have to sue B using A’s name.
•    Superficially, case would be A v. B,  but would actually be C sueing B.  This is how equity works in this situation.
•    Now there is a statute in every province which simplifies this situation.

Third A-B-C relationship:
•    The trust example
•    A & B have a contract (if unperformed, then each have subsisting rights against the other.  Rights are property.  Choses in action.)
o    A may hold the property (the right against B), not for his or her own benefit, but for the benefit of C.
•    A – trustee (of contractual rights)
•    C – beneficiary of the trust.
•    Referred to as cestqui que trust
o    If A does not act as a vigilant trustee, sueing B for unperformed actions, then C can unequivocally sue B.
o    Here, dealing with property – in the eyes of equity, A’s rights do not belong to A at all.  Belong to C.  Not suing on basis of contract.  Sueing for property.  A has legal title, C has equitable title.

New Zealand Shipping Co. Ltd. v. A.M. Satterthwaite & Co. Ltd.
•    There was a view that courts do not have the authority to change the privity rule, and says that the onus is on the legislature to change it.
•    The tide turned a little in New Zealand Shipping (page 381 onwards)
•    House of Lords, though unwilling to change the rule, softened up on recognizing trust and agency to get around the rule.
o    Did not change the rule – signalled a softening.

London Drugs Ltd. v. Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd.
Page 385
•    Goes much futher than New Zealand Shipping
•    Does in private law something that is rarely seen – grapples with the doctrine itself.
•    Interesting discussion on the issue addressed by Simonds (not the place of the court to change even judge-created laws).
•    SCC addresses the question.  Iocobucci J. says that judges can make incremental changes, but not large changes in well-accepted private-law rules.
•    Agrees that major changes to this would have to come from legislatures – in Canada, this means each provincial legislature, due to the Constitution.
•    Contract between A & B, which agrees that in certain circumstances, B will not sue C.  Shield promise.  Exemption promise.
o    Contrast to contract such as insurance policy where the goal is to confer a benefit on C.
•    Limitation of liability clause.  C’s defence would be based on the contract between A & B.
o    Court reasons that letting C defend itself is less radical than conferring a benefit on C.
•    London Drugs is a bailment case.
o    The bailee is a corporation – a warehouse.
o    Corporations can operate only through human agency – human beings.
o    The employees are negligent in handling the bailor’s chattel.
o    They are tortfeasors
o    The bailor sues the bailee – the human employees of the bailee.
o    Page 385 – the liability clause.
•    The bailor did not pay the additional charge to cover warehouse liability
•    Means, in effect, that the bailor took the risk on themselves.
•    In the suit against the employer (the warehouse) the warehouse was covered against liability by this clause, and was liable for only $40.
o    What of the employees?  Question of whether they were shielded.
o    Note:
•    1)  The reciprocity objection:  would allow a person to sue on a contract when that person could not be sued on the contract.
•    Lack of reciprocity
•    This is a trad. objection allowing C to sue as a third party.
•    2)  A & B contract.  One of the rights is to change their contract (though this is sometimes tricky -  need consideration).  As soon as one says that C acquires a right under A-B contract, that seems to inhibit A & B’s right to alter contracts.
•    The law does not allow us to destroy other people’s rights.
o    Iacobucci J. addresses these issues.
•    Says that rather than trying to find a way around the privity problem, will instead change the doctrine of privity.
•    Do not think that he tries to find that the warehouse contracted on the right of its employees.
•    Does not find any rel. in privity between the bailor and the bailee’s employees
•    Allows the employees to have rights even though they are not in privity
•    Says that in an employment situation, when A deals with B, knowing that B has employees, and that the actions can only be carried out by the employees, to give B’s employees certain rights under the A-B contract is not so very radical (should not take the bailor by surprise).
•    Much turns on C being an employee of B.
•    Paragraph 46, page 395.
o    “I am of the view that employees may obtain such a benefit if the following requirements are satisfied…
•    limitation of liability clause must, expressly or impliedly extend its benefit to employees
•    the employees seeking the benefit of the clause must have been acting in the course of their employment and been performing the very services provided for in the contract between their employer and the plaintiff (customer) when the loss occurred.
o    Said that the bailor was promising the bailee that if the bailee’s employees committed a tort, they would be shielded from liability above $40
•    ends up (on page 397) saying that by implication, the promise to the bailee covered not just the bailee, but also the employees (note – not saying that the bailor promised the employees – promised the bailee).
•    Cannot find the promise expressed – finds it implied.
•    Top of 397 – employees were not to benefit?  Says the language of the clause means inevitably that the employees were not covered.
•    The test of intention here, then, is a very shallow test.
•    Believes, on the facts, that when the bailor and bailee did contemplate (though not expressed) that the employees would be shielded from liability.
•    In the context of employment, employees can raise defences to lawsuits – the SCC has made an enormous practical and symbolic inroad into the doctrin of privity.
•    NOT saying that the employees were parties to the contract – saying they were intended beneficiaries.
•    As such, can invoke this defensively as a shield.  Still would not allow this to be used offensively.
•    The reason courts do not take the trust or agency argument and make them cure-alls is just because they would be cure-alls

Read up to Law Reform Act for next day.
Monday’s class will be review.
Can have another review class on Tuesday – 12:30pm tentatively

Exception Clauses p. 838
•    Warranty, in its technical meaning, is a sub-contract
•    It has a technical meaning
o    Close reading; strict construction
•    Wallis v. Pratt – “warranty” did not apply to exclude the implied statutory “condition” of the Sale of Goods Act that products must correspond to their description.
o    ¶5 - exclusion of “any warranty of condition” does not avail a seller if there has been a ‘negligent misstatement’
o    ¶6 – in the absesnce of an explicit mention of negligence, a judge is likely to find that exemption cluases do not exclude liability for negligence.
•    Judges believe that it should be very difficult to exclude oneself from the possibility of negligence, and that it must at the very least be explicit.
•    “The rule in Canada Steamships” – adopted this extreme example of reading down.  If an exemption clause could be given a meaning but the meaning was not broad enough to extend to negligence, then it does not extend to negligence.
•    If the exemption clause could refer to something other than negligence, then it is deemed to refer to that thing.
•    P. 839 – Inconsistency.
o    A number of ways that judges tackel ‘internal inconsistency’
•    To say that the provision that the parties agreed on explicitly takes precedence over some provision that is simply there as part of a form-document.
o    The passage on 839 is accurate, but misleadingly simplistic.

Parker v. Southeast Railway
•    A case that refers to the imp. of railway
•    Bottom Page 849 – caput lupinum – “Having the head of the wolf”.  Anyone might legally ‘kill’ them.
•    Railway companies were often the targets of juries, as insurance companies are today.
•    Railway takes the pos. that the passenger signed away their rights.
o    There was a notice on the wall of the cloak-room
o    There were conditions written on the ticket
•    Page 847 – “see back”; several clauses relating to articles left by passengers – “The company will not be resonsible for any package exceeding the value of £10.”
•    Bag could not be found.  Claimed that his bag was worth £24 10s.
•    Mellish L.J. – “In and 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 absesnce of fraud, it si wholly immaterial that he has not read the agreement and does not know its content …in the case [where the agreement has been reduced to writing so that the writing is the sole evidence of the agreement without signing it]there must be evidence of the agreement itself to prove that the defendant assented to it.”
•    P said that he knew there was writing on the ticket, but not what the writing was.  Said thought it may have been a receipt ¶3.
o    No question that had he read the writing, he would have been bound.
•    Contract law presumes that people, if given something to read, will read it.
•    Bramwell L.J.
o    For this judge, the question is whether the person who does not read the conditions in a better condition than he who does.
•    Bottom 848 – Mellish’s famous repropositions:
o    ¶3 – 3 propositions.  I am of the opionion there fore that the proper direction to leave to the jury in these cases is:
•    1)  That if the person receiving the ticket did not see or know that there was writing on the ticket, he is not bound by the conditions;
•    2)  that if he knew there was writing, and knew or believed that the writing contained conditions, then he is bound by the conditions;
•    [should this be subject to the condition that the writing be relevant and ‘usual’ to the circumstances?; that anything out of the ordinary would be brought specifically to the attention of the purchaser?]
•    3)  that if he knew there was writing on the ticket, but did not know or believe that the writing contained conditions, nevertheless he would be bound, if the delivering of the ticket to him in such a manner that he could see there was writing upon it, was, in the opinion of the jury, reasonable notice that the writing contained conditions.
•    [Would the purchaser be bound to every single condition on the ticket, or just the not-unusual contractual provisions?  Could they insert provisions to do with seizing first-born children and have done with it?]
•    page 849 – Bramwell L.J.
o    Bramwell is skeptical
o    Proposes that putting it into his hand should be no different than saying “read that” by the porter.  Asks what more the railway company could have done
o    Page 850 – qualifies what he says – says that the market has the answer.  If railway companies (or anyone else) began putting unreasonably terms in their contracts, then the public would hear of it and begin using alternative [forms of transportation, for example].
o    “What if there was ome unreasonable condition… Would the depositor be bound?  I might content myself by asking:  Would be be, if here were told ‘our conditions are on this ticket,’ and he did not read them.  In my judgment, he would not be bound in either case.  I think there is an implied understanding that there is no condition unreasonable to the  knowledge of the party tendering the document and not insisting on its being read – no condition not relevant to the atter in hand.”
•    Important qualification regarding ‘unreasonable conditions’

Note 5 page 851
•    J. Spurling Ltd. v. Bradshaw
o    Post-war case involving 8 casks of orange juice.
o    Most of the OJ disappeared while being stored in a bailee warehouse.
o    Decision of Denning L.
•    “I agree that the more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it.  Some clauses which I have seen would need t be printed in red ink on the face of the docuent with a read hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient.”
•    “Next it was said that the landing account and invoice were issued after goods had been received and could not therefre be part of the cotract of bailment:  but the defendant admitted that he had receive many landing accounts before.  True, he had not troubled to read them.  True, he had not troubled to read them.  On receiving this account, he took no objection to it, left the goods there, and went on paying the warehouse rent for months afterwards.  It seems to be that by the course of business and conduct of the parties, these conditions were part of the contrat.  In these circumstances, the plaintiffs were entitled to rely on this exempting condition…”

read p 851-852

Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking Ltd. – page 857
•    sign at entrance:  “All cars parked at ownder’s risk”.
•    Then drive up a ramp and press a button for a ticket.
•    Denning L. finds that the ramp is the offer, and driving up the ramp and pressing the button is the acceptance.
•    Even if the ticker were part of the conditions, how could one be bound by conditions that one could not see until after ‘acceptance’?
•    Same as the conditions posted inside the garage.
•    ¶2 – offer accepted when the P drove up the entrance and had the ticket thrust at him by the weight-sensor.  The contract was the concluded, and could not be altered by any words printed on the ticket.
•    ¶3 - Then gives analogy whereby the ticket machine is a booking clerk ‘in disguise’
o    goes back to 3 questions pose by Mellish L.J. in Parker
o    ¶4 – counsel for the ds admitted that the Ds did not do what was reasonably sufficient to give the P notice of the exempting condition.
o    “I do not pause to enquire whether the exempting condition is void for unreasonableness.”
•    BE CAREFUL.  There is no jurisprudence that allows courts to say that an exempting clause was void for unreasonableness.  Denning L.J. was likely trying to begin this jurisprudence, but it didn’t take.
•    Denning determines that the P was not bound by the exempting condition as there was no evi. that he knew of it.

Page 860 – Signed Contracts
•    “When a documet containing contractual terms is signed, then, in the absense of fraud, or I will add, misrepresentation, the party signing is bound, as it is wholly immaterial whether he has read the codument or not.”
o    Ie:  You signed, you’re bound.
•    Courts often want to save people from their own folly.
o    This causes tension.

For next day:  Tilden, Photo Production.