Parker v South Eastern Railway is one of the most significant cases in English contract law dealing with exclusion clauses and incorporation of terms by notice. The case established that an individual cannot simply escape contractual terms by claiming that they failed to read them. At the same time, it imposed a duty on the party relying on an exclusion clause to take reasonable steps to bring those terms to the attention of the other party.
The balance struck by the courts in this case remains fundamental to the law of contract, especially in matters involving tickets, receipts, and standard form agreements where one party might attempt to exclude liability.
This brief will explore the facts, issues, judgements across different courts, legal principles, and the wider significance of the decision.
Facts of Parker v South Eastern Railway
Mr Parker deposited a bag in the cloakroom of Charing Cross railway station, operated by the South Eastern Railway Company. Upon depositing his bag, he paid a small fee of two pence and was given a ticket. On the front of the ticket appeared the words “see back”. On the reverse side, there was an exclusion clause which stated that the company would not be liable for items deposited which were worth more than £10.
Mr Parker did not read the clause. He believed the ticket was merely a receipt acknowledging payment for the use of the cloakroom. Nevertheless, he admitted that he knew there was writing on the ticket. Unfortunately, his bag, which exceeded £10 in value, was lost. Mr Parker then sued the railway company for the value of the bag.
At trial, the jury found in Mr Parker’s favour. They held that it was reasonable for him not to have read the ticket, given that many individuals treat such receipts as nothing more than proof of payment. The key question of law therefore was whether the exclusion clause applied to Mr Parker despite his failure to read the conditions.
Issues
The Parker v South Eastern Railway case raised several important legal questions:
- Incorporation of terms: Can a person be bound by an exclusion clause even if they have not read it?
- Reasonable notice: What constitutes sufficient or reasonable steps by a company to bring contractual terms to the attention of a customer?
- Role of the jury: Should the question of reasonable notice be treated as one of fact for the jury to decide, or as a question of law for the judges?
Judgement of Parker v South Eastern Railway
The matter was appealed to the Court of Appeal, where the majority ordered a retrial.
Mellish LJ (majority)
Mellish LJ delivered the most influential reasoning. He clarified the proper direction that should be left to a jury:
- If a person does not see or know that there is any writing on the ticket, he is not bound by the conditions.
- If a person knows there is writing and knows or believes that it contains conditions, then he is bound by those conditions.
- If a person knows there is writing but does not know or believe it contains conditions, he may still be bound, provided that the delivery of the ticket, in such a manner that he could see there was writing upon it, amounted to reasonable notice of the conditions.
This clarified that it was not enough for a company merely to print conditions on the back of a ticket. The question was whether sufficient notice had been given to the customer to alert them to the existence of contractual terms.
Baggallay LJ (majority)
Baggallay LJ concurred with Mellish LJ, agreeing that the issue of reasonable notice was one for the jury. He anticipated that a jury might again find in favour of Parker, but maintained that the retrial was necessary for the correct legal direction to be applied.
Bramwell LJ (dissent)
Bramwell LJ dissented. He argued that reasonable notice should be a matter of law, not fact. In his view, the company had provided adequate notice by including “see back” on the ticket, and therefore the exclusion clause should be enforced as a matter of principle. He would have found in favour of the railway company outright.
Conclusion
Parker v South Eastern Railway remains a cornerstone of English contract law. It clarified the rules surrounding exclusion clauses and the incorporation of terms into a contract. The case demonstrates that while parties cannot escape liability simply by failing to read contractual terms, those terms will only be enforceable where reasonable notice has been given.
The judgement has shaped the law by ensuring fairness in transactions involving standard form contracts and tickets, where one party seeks to exclude liability. It has been cited for over a century as authority on the principle that contract terms must be properly communicated before they can bind a party.
