Contract Law

Consideration:
•    Number of plausible ways to look at the different types of agreements that the law will enforce
o    In common law, we enforce almost none of these
o    Consideration:  The type of promises that we enforce end up coinciding with what would be looked at if we said we would enforce “serious promises”, etc.
•    Requires evidence of an exchange.  If an exchange occurs, it ought to be fairly conspicuous.
•    Has an elemet of formality.
•    Although it is at first glance eccentric and non-intuitive, it does largely yield the same approach as if we had taken a more intuitive approach.
•    Analytical vocabulary for consideration as a problem:
o    Must approach the problem in a certain way.
•    Who is the offerer, who is the offeree?
•    Analytical tools involved the vocab of promiser and promisee – not the equivalent of offerer and offeree, in any way shape or form.
•    They are incommensurate ideas.
•    At the formation of a contract, we can conceptualize the formation of a contract as an exchange of promises.
•    If each party is receipt of a promise from the other, then we have two promisers and two promisees
•    This is the formation perspective.
•    But by the time time has passed and we have entered litigation, only one of the orginally dual promiser/promisee relationships is relevant.
•    One promisee sues one promiser.  This is the promise that the promisee must show that they gave consideration in exchange for.
•    This is the promise that has allegdedly been broken.
•    This tells us what the relevant consideration was.
•    Must show the court that the relevant consideration was giving.
•    In a contracts case, the plaintiff is always the promisee; the defendant is always the promisor.
•    The relevant consideration is the one that the promisee must show that he provided to the promisor in exchange for his promise.
o    Our legal system only enforces bargains.
o    In our legal system, a promise of consideration is as good as consideration – this explains how offer/aceptance can result in a binding contract.  The law says that a promise of title (for example), in exchange for money (for example), is equivalent to having made the exchange.
o    There is virtually no reason, but the alleged reason is that the promise is as good as consideration, because the alternative fulfilling the promise is to be sued (and have the court impose payment).
•    Great conclusion:  The relevant consideration is the one that the pl. promisee must show that he/she promised to exchange with the def. promisor in exhange for the defendant’s promise.
•    Dalhousie – one cannot look at just anything and decide that it’s consideration.  Dal built buildings and hired teachers (in theory) on the basis of this pledge, and yet it was not consideration.
•    The point made by the scc is that Dal did not bargain the building of buildings.  It received Arthur’s promise, and then built buildings in response.  It did not exchange the building of buildings for the promise.
•    Cannot be made in reaction to a promise – that is not consideration.  “Here’s a plane ticket.”  “Wow.  Thanks.  I’ll give you some money.”  This is not consideration.  It is a reaction.
o    The essence of consideration is that it won’t be such unless it was exhanged in return for the promise.
•    P 357:  “To hold otherwise would be to hold that a naked, voluntary promise may be converted into a binding legal contract by the subsequent action of the promisee alone, without the consent, express or implied, of the promisor.”

Hamer v. Sidway
•    Is a case where one might at first thing that there was not consideration, but yes indeed there was.
•    The “assignee” in this case – a right is a species of property.  The nephew has sold his $5000 claim to some money-lender (likely for a much lesser value).
•    Family promises – not addressed, though this was between family, and at a family gathering where they had no doubt been drinking…
•    The facts of the case is not contested.
•    What is contested is the existence of consideration on the nephew’s part.
•    Uncle’s estate argues that he didn’t receive any benefit, but in actuality the nephew benefitted.
•    The law does not recognize “moral consideration” – could not argue that the uncle received the pleasure of seeing his nephew do well.
•    It is enough that the nephew gave up his legal rights based on the promise of his uncle.  This is enough of a basis to constitute consideration.
o    Consideration does not have to be a benefit traded to the promiser – it can be simply a detriment, loss, or responsibility given, suffered, or undertaken by the other (p 258).
o    Can shorten the benefit concurred / detriment sustained formulation to simply detriment sustained.
•    There is not case where the defendant promisee did not sustain a detriment.  All benefit conferred cases are also detriment sustained.
•    In typical contracts case, what one gives up with typically benefit the other.  However, this is not a universal rule.
•    Can take a formula in currie v. Misa and collapse it into “detriment sustained”
o    This is broader.
•    P 261 is a little more concise.  It is, however, useful to take it to the next level.

Eastwood v. Kenyon
•    A case of the guardian versus the husband.
•    Sarah Eastwood left orphaned.  Guardian borrowed money to spend on her upkeep during her infancy.
•    At 21, Sarah got married.  First promised to compensate her guardian.
•    New husband then made the same promise.  Does not complete this promise
•    Must identify the promise being sued on.
o    The relevant consideration is the one that the the guardian bargained to the husband.
o    Only thing that the guardian could say is that he took care of Sarah during her infancy.
o    Could not have actually been made in consideration of the husband’s promise, as it pre-dated the promise by many years.
o    The thing which is consideration was sustained long before the promise being sued on.  Was already in the past.  Could not have been an exchange or bargain as the law demands.  The guardian is remedyless.

For tomorrow:  will return to Eastwood v. Kenyon – will do entire next section of outline. – 3 cases..

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.

Promissory Estoppel:

•    There are 57 different types of estoppel under our legal system.
•    This is why it must be qualified as promissory estoppel.
o    Invented by Denning L. in 1940s.
o    Original formulation had in it ambiguitiy almost to the point of contradiction.
•    Para 2 on page 316
o    3 or 4 diff formulations just in that one paragraph.
o    Retreats later from “create” legal relations in regards to a promise
o    “Promise must be honoured” – is this retreated from?
o    Most succinct formulation:  “Promises intended to be binding, intended to be acted on, and in fact acted on.”
•    This is acceptable today…
•    “In each case the court held the promise to be binding on the parky parking it,e ven though under the old common law it might be difficult to find any consideration for it.”
•    The courts do not enforce the promise but do not allow the promisor to act inconsistently with it…?
•    Runs around Foakes v. Beer in this way.  Uses estoppel as a work-around.

Combe v. Combe
•    The text points out the absurdity of the fact of a matrimonial case becoming a contract precedent.
o    This is in fact what our legal tradition began doing in the 19th century.
o    The Victorial era began inventing contract law by abstracting out of all the contracts that had always existed and began to find common elements in them all.
•    Led to basic rules such as offer, acceptance, and consideration.
•    Divorced contract law from its particular situation and created a general-field theory – “The law of contracts”
•    The facts are remniscent of Balfour v. Balfour.
o    Here, the couple, during divorce, came to an agreement between them for him to pay her £100 / year.
o    After 6 ¾ years, she sues him for the arrears (he had paid nothing)
o    She wants to enforce a promise.
o    But our legal system doesn’t enforce promises.  We need consideration – a bargain.
o    What is it suggested that she swapped with him?
•    Forbearance – forebore to take him to Divorce Court.
•    This sounds like consideration.
o    Denning L. has 2 answers:
•    1)  Nothing to suggest that this was intended by either the husband or wife.  It was not a bargained-for forbearance.
•    Similar to Dalhousie v. Boutilier
•    2)  Even if she had promised to forebear, she would never lose the right to apply to the Divorce Court – there was (and still is, in a sense – in the sense that it now applies to either sex) a rule that a wife could not bar herself from getting court-ordered maintenance.
•    Denning L. says that she didn’t make this promise anyway, but even if she did, it would not be binding because it has no value.  She cannot contract herself out of this right.
•    This means that the rule, which appears to be solicitous to wives, can be read in a way to be beneficial to husbands (as in this case).
•    Normally, a bargained-for forbearance is consideration.  This is a special case because of this aforementioned rule.
•    Whenever one has a scenario where the enforceability of a promise is in dispute, then consideration must be considered first.
o    If consideration is found, then there is no need to go forth and talk about estoppel.
o    Estoppel is what makes this case famous.
•    Trial judge, having found that there was no consideration, went on and upheld the husband’s promise.
o    Did so because he believed the case fit neatly under the High Trees principle.
•    A promise relied on, and intended to be relied on, is binding.
o    Denning L. says that though it looks like it fits, he had been too broad with his wording in High Trees.
•    Combe v. Combe introduces a refinement on High Trees.
•    Page 318 – para 3:  “…lest it should be endangered.”   In other words, lest it be overruled by a higher court.
•    It is not a creative doctrine – it is a preventative doctrine.
•    “It only prevents a party from insisting on his strict legal rights when it would be unjust to allow him to do so, having regard to the dealings with have taken place between the parties.”
•    Though he says this, he immediately goes on to say that that is not to say that it is only available to defendants.
•    When one thinks of estoppel, naturally equates it with defendants.
•    Denning L. says that plaintiffs can use it just as readily, but it must always be a defensive doctrine.
•    Gives examples on top of 319.
•    Foakes v. Beer comes into play in these examples.
•    “Example 2 is breath-taking” – Bell
o    “Can even say that example #1 is breath-taking.” – Bell
o    Denning gives account of a gov. dept and the war-service disease.
•    There was a statute that said anyone whose disease was due to war service got a pension
•    Robertson made a claim as such.  Ministry accepted it, and Robertson stopped collecting evidence.
•    Then, the ministry changed its mind and said that they needed more evidence.
•    Robertson sues on his statutory entitlement to a pension.
o    Ministry says that they need evidence
o    Roberson claims they are estopped, because he put reasonable reliance on their word that they needed no more.
o    This is a case where the plaintiff estopps a defendant.
•    Robertson wasn’t suing the ministry saying, “You promised me.”  He sued on his statutory right for pension.
•    Then when they raised the inevitable defence, he put forth that they were estopped.
•    In none of these cases were the plaintiffs suing on the promise.
•    Estoppel is never part of the cause of action, but plays a key role in determining whether someone is going to win or lose.  Is a subsidiary feature of the case.
o    Denning gives a new formulation.  Less succinct than previous formulation.  Enormously wordy.  P 319 end of para 3.
•    Has inserted “conduct”
•    Could be relevant – case where a landlord allows rent to be late for 6 months, then on the 7th uses it ‘as an excuse’ to kick the pl. out.  The pl would argue that the conduct of the landlord had led them to believe it was okay.
•    “only by his word” is not accurate.  Should read, “by reasonable reliance”
•    Still has not given qulification.
o    Para 4
•    Says that if we took seriously the principle form high trees, (reasonable reliance), then why would we need consideration?
•    There is an answer…
•    Denning now accepts that this principle would overturn 9/10 of the doctrine of consideration…
•    “Its ill effecta have been largely mitigated of late, but it still remains a cardinal necessit of the formation of a contract, although not of its modification or discharge.  I fear that it was my failure to make this clear in High Trees which misled [the trial judge] in the present case.”
•    SO, cannot sue based on estoppel, but if have another issue, then can bring estopple into play.
•    Likewise, if one is being sued (and is therefore compelled into court), then can use estoppel
•    Unfortunately for Mrs. Combe, she is relying on estoppel.  This is why her action ends up being dismissed.
•    Aside:  There is no difference between variation and modification.
o    Denning says that one can use estoppel defensively, not offensively. (“to be used as a shield and not as a sword”. – Birkett L.J. page 321.  Famous disctinction created by Birkett here.)
•    WHY DIDN’T COMBE APPLY TO…[this is Bell’s favourite exam question.  Figure out what he said.  Was purposefully elusive.]  Wilbur?
•    High trees made it seem as though reasonable reliance alone would be enough to enforce a promise.
o    This would have revolutionized contracts – would have been just about fatal to doctrine of consideration.
o    To sue to enforce a promise requires consideration.
•    This is why the wife cannot win.
•    Promissory Estoppel goes from 2 factors to 3
•    1)  Promise and intention to be relied on
•    2)  And relied on by the promisee
•    3)  except that, a promisee cannot sue on the promise based on estoppel.  It cannot be the foundation of the case – the cause of action.
•    Each side can use estoppel, but the plaintiff can never sue successfully using estoppel as a cause of action.
o    This is for no good reason other than Denning L. says so
o    Denning L. made his career on making cases stand for things that judges could not foresee them standing for…
o    “Law is an awful lot like fairy tales… We often treat the past with as much profundity as a fairy tale.  …We make the wisdom of the past say something that it didn’t say yesterday.”
o    Everyone is happy to see Foakes v. Beer be defanged, so we all go along with it an pretend it makes sense.

Page 322 – Note 5.
•    Suggestion that estoppel principle might have been a substitute for consideration
Note 6
•    A) a profound question that we must eventually be able to think about…
o    The effect of the sword/shield distinction means that my promise to take less from you than I’m entitled to may be binding on me,
•    Suppose B owes A $100.  If A promises to take only $90, then the estoppel principle says that A can take the $90 (enforecable), but, if instead A owes B $100, and A promises to pay $110, then then law won’t enforce the promise.
•    This is despite that in both examples, B is $10 better off.
•    When estoppel works in high-trees, the land-lord is estopped from going back on his promise
•    When it doesn’t work in combe, the wife cannot enforce the husband’s promise that she will get money
•    6a asks us to thing about whether there is a sensible distinction between a promise to take less, versus a promise to pay more…
•    they both amount to one person being $10 richer than they otherwise would be.
•    This case did make its way to the JCPC – they gavem ultiple factors to come into an estoppel, but amounted to what Denning L. has already said.
o    “resile” – abandon a position or course of action.

D. & C. Builders Ltd. v. Rees.
•    15 years later
•    Denning L. by this time the most famous judge in the common-law world.
•    Had been promoted to house of lords, but found there was less influence here.
o    Arranged for his won demotion to chief justice of court of appeal
o    Assigned all good cases to himself.
o    M.R. – master of the roles.

Read this case for next day.  Read on to the two other decisions on pa 326 to think about where Denning’s decision stands in regards to the two others.
Also, go on to Waltons – a potentiall spectacular case from Aus. – goes back to High tress without Combe v. Combe.

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.