| CITATION | (1949) 1 KB 523; (1949) 1 All ER 127 |
| JUDGE(S) SITTING | Denning LJ, Singleton LJ and Bucknill LJ |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | 2,3 December 1949 |
| COURT | Court of Appeal |
| CLAIMANT | Olley |
| DEFENDANT | Marlborough Court Hotel |
| PROVISION | Contract Law |
INTRODUCTION
The case revolves around the question of exclusion clauses that was examined in this case, as well as whether or not a notice of one on the back of a hotel door qualified as a contract and relied on the establishment of liability for guest belonging loss. The question of whether the defendant could rely on a contract’s provisions to protect themselves from liability under common law had been by the court.
SYNOPSIS OF FACTS
- Mr. and Mrs. Olley stayed at the Marlborough Court Hotel in Lancaster Gate, London, for a long period of time. In order to reserve a room at the defendant’s hotel, Olley, the claimant, paid at the reception. The contract of their stay was formed at the point of check-In. There was no mention of an exclusion clause when the contract was made at the reception desk.
- They were shown to their rooms after making their advance payment and signing on the register. There was a notice on display with many terms and conditions that “The proprietors will not be held themselves accountable for any articles lost or stolen unless handed to the reception desk for safe custody” was posted on the wall of the hotel room.
- Subsequently when they were out for the evening their key was taken from the reception desk and used to gain access to their room. Later, something was stolen from the plaintiff’s room with her belongings. Following that, the claimant checked out of the hotel room and departed her key on the board at the reception desk.
- The claimant sued the defendant for damages for the loss incurred.
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the defendant could rely on a contract’s provisions to protect themselves from liability under common law and whether the defendant was responsible for the loss suffered by the plaintiff?
CONTENTION BY CLAIMANT
The claimant side argued that the defendants were supposed to protect her keys, but they failed to do so. However, the claimant states that defendant’s staff members neglected to take care of the room key, which allowed the claimant’s belongings to be taken.
CONTENTION BY DEFENDANT
The defendant side argued that the exclusion clause, which was prominently displayed in the rooms, disclaimed the defendant’s liability even in the situation that the defendant used the keys carelessly.
JUDGEMENT RENDERED
- The court held in favour of the claimant claim and retrieved the cost of the stolen goods. The Olleys were not made aware of the notice’s statement during the contract-making process. When the Olleys paid and signed the register, the agreement between the hotel and themselves was finalized.
- Furthermore, if the notice in the bedroom was correctly interpreted, that it was not sufficient to relieve the defendant from accountability for any loss or theft resulting from the employee’s carelessness. It did not extend to non-negligent loss liability.
- The notice’s claims had not been incorporated into the agreement. It may have been claimed that, if upon contracting, the Olleys knew about the notice in the room and that they had previously stayed at the hotel if it had been proven.
RATIO DECIDENDI
that there was no mention of an exclusion clause when the contract was signed at the reception. that notice of the exclusion clause must be given to the other party either before or during the contract’s formation in order for it to be effective.
ANALYSIS
- Before or at the time of the contract, the exclusion clause needs to be introduced.
- The courts mandate that the notice provided of the exclusion clause must be reasonable in addition to the requirement that the term be introduced prior to or at the time of the contract. declared differently, that the party who is bound by the clause needs to be duly informed of its existence either prior to or during the formation of the contract.
CONCLUSION
The case states the exclusion clauses in English contract law which supported the idea that a statement made by one party after the agreement was formed cannot be incorporated into the agreement. It was decided that the notice could not have been incorporated into the agreement. Only in cases where the statement was made at the time the contract was formed can be deemed legally binding. Finally, the decision was that the notice’s declaration had not been incorporated into the contract and that the defendant’s liability cannot be limited by the exclusion clause in the room.
REFERENCES
“THIS ARTICLE IS WRITTEN BY R.S.KANIMOZHI STUDENT OF SATHYABAMA INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY – SCHOOL OF LAW, CHENNAI; INTERN AT LEGAL VIDHIYA.”
.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
