Contract Construction Case Law Flashcards
The Moorcock (1889)
Rules of interpretation
Intervention
The Moorcock (1889) intervention is unusual
Case: The ship needs to unload and reload cargo and the contract states that this should be done at the defender’s wharf and jetty on the river thames. The only safe time to do this is high tide (so ship does not run aground) but the time agreed corresponds with low tide. Safety of ship is not addressed specifically in contract. Vessel is damaged
HELD
The court intervenes and rules that custom implies that no reasonable person would have exposed the ship to damage. Although the defenders had not been asked to assure safety of ship, they should have provided such an undertaking. Many disagree with this intervention and argue that a court should not imply a contract term just because it is reasonable to do so.
Taylor v. Glasgow Corporation (1952) (public bathing)
Exclusion Clause (2 points established)
CASE: This involved a lady who went to have a bath in a Glasgow corporation facility. At this time many people had no bathroom in their home and often shared a toilet with their neighbours. Mrs Taylor paid for her bath and received a ticket as proof of payment. While she was in the facility she slipped and fell down some stairs injuring herself. When she sought damages for her injury she was referred to an exclusion clause printed on the reverse of the ticket however she argued that she had not considered reading the ticket as she thought it was simply a voucher to receive her bath.
HELD: The court held that it was reasonable that Mrs Taylor only considered the ticket as a voucher and made two points:
1) Where an exclusion clause is printed on a ticket it should be of a type that a reasonable person might expect to form part of the contract’s documentation.
2) Reasonable steps must have been taken to bring the conditions to the notice of the contracting party.
Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking (1971)
Exclusion clause (vending machines)
CASE: Mr Thornton took a ticket from a machine to enter the carpark. While his car was parked it was damaged and Mr Thornton sued the carpark for his expenses in having his car repaired. The carpark maintained that there were notices in the carpark that excluded them from responsibility for damage to parked cars. However, these notices were displayed beyond the ticket barrier where the contract had been formed.
HELD: Conditions must be clear at the time the contract is formed and new terms cannot be introduced after the contract is formed and so the carpark were unsuccessful in their defence.
