C : Good afternoon everyone, today I am here to represent the claimant Mr Chapelton.
Mr Chapelton desired to hire a deck chair and approached a pile of chairs owned by Barry Urban District Council (Barry UDC). A notice detailed the cost of hire of the chairs and advised customers to obtain a ticket and keep them for inspection. Mr Chapelton purchased tickets for the deck chairs and placed them in his pocket. On the back of the tickets, the council professed to exclude liability for any accidents caused by hiring the deck chairs. Mr Chapelton sat down, and the canvas on one of the chairs gave way. He sought after damages from Barry Urban District Council and it was held that they ha defectively excluded liability. Chapelton appealed.
• When Mr Chapelton purchased the hire of the deck chairs from Barry Urban District Council there was no indication to alert him to read the exclusion clauses which is a specific type of exemption clause. An exemption clause being a term which excludes or modifies an obligation, whether primary or general secondary classified either as a limitation or exclusion term-Diplock LJ.But an exclusion term excludes liability for a breach of contract and/or tort which is seen in our case. On the back of the ticket as there was nothing clear, significant or bold on the front of the receipt, therefore he was not given sufficient notice to the clauses written on the back thus should not be bound by the terms and clauses of the contract. It must also be noted that there was no notice provided next to the stall regarding the exclusion terms, if the case was brought into a court today the case of Curtis and Chemical Cleaning Co could be used to argue this point.
• Mr Chapelton argues that the apparent exemption clause, excluded liability but was not incorporated correctly and therefore it must be tested. Firstly, the timing of this exclusion clauses was discovered after the purchase was made this relates to the case of Ryan and Great Southern West Railway. The exclusion clause maybe contained in an unsigned document such as a ticket. However, in the case of Mr Chapelton there was no sufficient notice of the exclusion clause on the notice adjacent to the deck chairs, therefore the exclusion clause could not be enforced as Mr Chapelton was not given sufficient notice of it. With the exclusion clause being so onerous,there should have been a notice saying so before purchase,which was not evident and finally the incorporation can be seen to be invald because of the nature of the document.A ticket cannot be classed as a document for a contract,rather just a mere receipt.
• The construction of this exclusion clause is also weak because excluding a liability for negligence must be clear and with it being on the reverse of the receipt this indicates it being unclear and not bold enough. Lord Denning importantly stated that exemption clauses, however specifically exclusion clause in this case, must be written in red pen. This is further supported, by the case of Henderson and Stevenson as the courts had consistently presumed that a ticket without a reference on the front is seen as defective.
• Furthermore, in today’s court due to the agreement being made between a business to a consumer it therefore is an implied term being one made by statute, which is seen by the statue of the Consumer Rights Act.If the case was argued in the current day the exemption clause cannot be valid because of the statute of the consumer rights act, section 49 which states liability cannot be excluded for reasonable care and skill and section 65 which proves that businesses cannot excluded liability for negligence.
•
• Thus, the exemption clause was not incorporated effectively because there was not sufficient time and awareness brought to the attention of Mr Chapelton.
D : Good morning everyone , today I am here to defend the defendant Barry urban city council
• D : Firstly, a valid contract was made between Mr Chapelton and Barry Urban District Council as a valid offer and acceptance was made. This can be shown when the deck chairs were on display and how Mr Chapelton picked up the chairs and proceeded to pay the vendor. The receipt/ticket was therefore the contract being made and the terms where written /printed on the reverse of the receipt. The receipt/ticket was not a mere indication of the exchange of money for a service but also an agreement of binding terms. The notice which was exhibited was no more than an invitation to treat which is an invitation to make an offer on a product or service. It was the ticket which constituted a contract with the binding terms and therefore ticket was not a mere ticket. – this seen in the case of Thompson and London Midland and Scottish Ry. Co. The case demonstrated that the taking of the ticket with the knowledge that terms and conditions applies amount to an acceptance of those terms, and an agreement to be bound by them.
• Due to the terms being written on the receipt it is classed as an expressed term, as it was a written statement between two parties that was binding. This is seen in the case between L’Estrange and Graucob.
• The exclusion clause was incorporated on the back of the receipt, which is the contract between both parties therefore, the nature of the document is suitable for it to be a valid exclusion clause.
• As it is onerous it is only due to the ignorance of Mr Chapelton taking the receipt and placing it directly into his pocket without acknowledging the binding terms. As previously cited this relates to the case of L'estrange v Graucob. The terms where written on the contract, and it shows reasonable consideration by Barry Urban District council. This relates to the case of Parker and South-Eastern Railways. An exclusion clause must be sufficiently brought to the notice of the other party. This means that an ordinary and reasonable person would have realised that there was an exclusion clause written on the relevant signboard or ticket.
• The construction of the exclusion clause is strong as it indicates in the contract that Barry would not be liable for any accident or damage arising from the hire of the chair. This strongly indicates how this is an exclusion clause as it clearly states that Barry would not be liable for incidents that would occur from the hire of the chair.
• Furthermore if the case was brought to court in the present day there are new legislations and statutes that can be argued in the defence of Barry Urban District Council as the service was performed with reasonable care and skill as stated in Section 49 of the Consumer Rights Act, it was Mr Chapleton who damaged the chair by his own incompetence this is seen in another new statute in the Contributory Negligence Act.
• Thus, the exemption clause was correctly constructed and incorporated, and it is due to the ignorance of Mr Chapelton not reading the terms and exclusion clauses of the contract that brought the case to court.
J:
• The court of appeal’s judgement is to overturn the original judgement in favour of Barry Urban District Council and award Chapelton damages for the injuries he experienced when hiring a deck chair from Barry Urban District Council.
• The ground for this decision are that the notice adjacent to the deck chairs advising customers to retain the ticket was merely an invitation to treat and not an offer and therefore this was not a term of the contract.
• The ticket was then given to Mr Chapelton after the contract had been made and therefore due to the timing the ticket is considered nothing more than a receipt for the contract and any exclusion clauses on the ticket cannot be incorporated as terms this is similar to the case between Ryan and Southern West Railway which was previously cited by the claimant’s representative.
• An exclusion clause must be made clear and as Lord Denning made by expressing that all exclusion clauses must written in red pen. The exclusion clause being on the reverse of the ticket and not being brought to Mr Chapelton’s attention means it cannot be considered as an exclusion clause and was not down to the ignorance of Mr Chapelton this can be seen in the case of Henderson and Stevenson. Thus favouring to Mr Chapelton.
• Both the claimant and the defendant have brought in new legislations and statutes for their respective arguments. If mediated in the current times,I can bring your attention to Section 49 of the Consumer Rights Act, it states that a service must be carried out with reasonable care and skill, in this case the deck chair hired by Mr Chapelton was not carried out in such a manner and therefore this is a breach of statute. This incident was not due to the negligence of Mr Chapelton but solely due to the quality of the service being provided to Mr Chapelton by Barry Urban District Council and they are therefore liable. This can show further evidence in favouring Mr Chapelton and thus, I can conclude the verdict in favour of the claimant, Mr Chapelton. Therefore, awarding Mr Chapelton the damages he sought out.