ICAS TC Business Law Module 3 Flashcards
Powell v Kempton Park Racecourse 1899
Facts: It was an offence to use a ‘house, office, room or other place for betting’. The
defendant was using an outdoor ring at the racecourse for the purposes of betting.
The court had to decide whether this outdoor ring at the racecourse fell into an ‘other
place’ where betting was an offence.
Held: The court held that ‘other place’ had to refer to a place indoors because the
words listed were all indoor places. As the defendant was operating from a place
outdoors he was not guilty of the offence.
You
The Scottish Farmers’ Dairy Co (Glasgow) Ltd v McGhee 1933
Facts: A milkman was contractually bound not to carry on
business as a milkman within one mile of his former employer’s
business.
Held: The clause was found to be reasonable as the
preservation of the employer’s trading interests was a legitimate
interest of every trader. In this case, it was particularly relevant
that the only contact the employer had with his customers was
through the milkmen. It was thought that, if a popular milkman
joined a rival employer, the goodwill for that area would
automatically transfer to the rival because customers would
continue to buy milk from their usual milkman. Therefore, the
prohibition was reasonable in all the circumstances.
Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co Ltd
1894
Facts: The seller of an armaments business agreed that he
would not engage in the trade or business of an arms
manufacturer for a 25-year period. This amounted to a worldwide
restriction.
Held: The restrictive covenant was reasonable.
The House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) took into account
the fact that the nature of the business was such that the former
customers of the seller came from all over the world.
Rentokil Ltd v Kramer 1986
Facts: K’s contract of employment prohibited him, for two years,
from canvassing anyone who had been a Rentokil customer
during the period of two years immediately preceding the
termination of K’s employment. Rentokil alleged that K had
canvassed at least four of their former customers and raised an
action for an interdict and damages. K argued the restriction was
wider than necessary.
Held: The restriction was not wider than necessary. K had
enjoyed full access to Rentokil’s customer lists. They were
entitled to protect their business connections and to prevent K
from using such information to their prejudice and to the
advantage of his new employers.
Empire Meat Co v Patrick 1939
Facts: An employer tried to impose a five mile restriction on the manager of his
butcher’s shop, although the likely radius of customers was only two miles. The
manager set up business almost next door.
Held: As the area of five miles was too wide, the restriction failed and the manager
was allowed to stay where he was.
Taylor v Glasgow Corporation 1952
Facts: Mrs T went to the public baths every week. She paid her entrance fee and
was given a ticket. She knew the ticket had writing on it but not that it contained
conditions.
On one side of the ticket, it said ‘For conditions, see the other side.’ On the other
side, it said ‘The Corporation of Glasgow are NOT responsible for any loss, injury or
damage sustained by persons entering or using this establishment or its equipment.’
Held: The ticket was not of a type that a person could reasonably be expected to
study for conditions. Mrs T was entitled to assume it was just a voucher she had
been given to allow her entry to the pool. The Corporation had not sufficiently brought
the term to her notice and it was not therefore incorporated into the contract.
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd 1971
Facts: Operators of a car park tried to exclude liability for damage to cars and
personal injury by the use of an exclusion clause printed on the parking ticket and on
notices within the car park itself. Users of the car park obtained tickets from an
automatic machine at the entrance.
Applying principles of offer and acceptance, taking the ticket constituted an
acceptance of the offer made by the machine, and therefore, the conditions would
not come to the attention of users until after the contract had been formed. The same
applied to the notices within the car park.
Held: The exclusion clause was ineffective.
Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel 1949
Facts: Mr Olley and his wife arrived at a hotel and paid for their room at reception.
When they reached the bedroom they saw a notice on the wall which said that the
hotel disclaimed liability for any loss of valuables unless the management had been
given them for safe keeping. When they left the room, they locked it and handed the
key to the reception. A thief stole the key and Mrs Olley’s fur coat.
Held: The hotel could not rely on the disclaimer notice in the bedroom because the
contract was formed at the reception when the room was paid for.
L’Estrange v Graucob 1934
Facts: The contract between the two parties for the sale of a slot machine excluded
a claimant’s normal rights under sale of good laws. The claimant had, however,
signed a document described as a ‘Sales Agreement’ which included clauses which
were legible but which were in small print.
Held: As the claimant had signed the document, even though she had not read all
the small print, the conditions included in the document she had signed were binding
on her.
Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co Ltd 1951
Facts: The claimant took her wedding dress to be cleaned. She was asked to sign
a receipt on which there were conditions which she was told restricted the cleaner’s
liability and in particular placed on the claimant the risk of damage to beads and
sequins on the dress. In fact, the receipt contained a clause which stated the
company was ‘not liable for any damage however caused’. The dress was badly
stained in the course of cleaning.
Held: The cleaners could not rely on their exclusion clause because they had actively
misled the claimant. She was entitled to assume that she risked the beads and
sequins on the dress being damaged only.
Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd 1988
Facts: 47 photographic transparencies were delivered to the defendant together with
a delivery note with conditions on the back. These conditions included a clause which
stated that for every day late which passed in returning each transparency there
would be a charge of £5 plus VAT per transparency. The transparencies were
returned 14 days late and the claimant sued for the full amount.
Held: The term regarding the payment for a late return was an onerous term and had
not been sufficiently brought to the attention of the defenders/defendant. The court,
therefore, did not apply the clause and awarded damages to more fairly reflect the
loss caused to the claimant by the 14 day delay.
