Unsigned Documents

Question 1

Melish vs. Bramwell’s approaches in Parker

Answer 1

• In Parker, Mellish and Bramwell gave tests for determining if the terms were assented to:
• Mellish’s test followed Hadley and Baxendale (i.e. looking at reasonableness)
• Bramwell’s test is based on what was bargained for (i.e., was the limited liability bargained for? Was there clear assent?)
• Valcke and Court prefer the Bramwell test.

Question 1

unsigned documents rules

Answer 1

• Sometimes contracts are issued that do not require a signature, such as taking a ticket from a parking garage or as a “receipt:
• Taking a ticket = acceptance of liability for its contents only where it can “reasonably” be seen as such (Parker, Thornton)
• To determine if the offeree is bound, we look to the offeror to show that the offeree can reasonably be deemed ot have assented to the waiver
• The more onerous a term is, the more notice/ clarity of assent is required (Parker (Bramwell), Spurling, Thornton)
• If conditions are not part of the contract at the moment of contract formation, the Court will hold that the ticket is a receipt (Chapelton).
  If there is a pre-existing contractual/business relationship between the parties, the Court may say that there is a standard contract used every time. - Even if there’s no evidence that the other party read the terms and they are not very onerous, they can still apply (J Spurling).

Question 2

the parties’ bargain (objectively) determines:

Answer 2

1. What the parties are to do for one another, and hence what will constitute a breach (offer and acceptance cases)
2. The remedies called for if there is a breach (The Achilleas).
3. The process/form by which the contract is formed (McCutcheon).

Question 3

Parker v. The South Eastern Railway Company

Answer 3

Establishes the Bramwell & Melish tests. The Court (& Valcke) tend to prefer the Bramwell “bargained for” test.

Question 4

Chapelton v. Barry Urban District Council

Answer 4

If the document appears to be a “mere receipt” or voucher, exclusion clauses printed on it are ineffective, unless the deliverer took reasonable steps to bring them to the recipient’s attention before the contract was formed.

Question 5

Olley v. Marlborough Court Ltd.

Answer 5

Notices put up in hotel bedrooms do not constitute a contract because guests do not see them until after they have accepted a contract with a hotel.

Question 6

Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking Ltd.

Answer 6

The contract is formed at the exact moment the money is put into the machine. Because the ticket containing the limitation clauses is dispensed after this moment, the clauses are not incorporated into the contract.

Question 7

J Spurling Ltd. v. Bradshaw

Answer 7

A regular history of trading can cure the defect of late notice. Terms used in previous contracts are assumed to apply to the current one. However, exceptionally harsh or unreasonable clauses require exceptionally prominent notice to be binding.

Question 8

unsigned documents calling for signature rules

Answer 8

Generally, a signature is necessary for the valid acceptance of documents calling for a signature. (McCutcheon)

Question 9

McCutcheon v. David MacBrayne Ltd.

Answer 9

Without a signature, the document is not a valid contract.

Question 10

British Crane Hire Corp. Ltd. v. Ipswich Plant Hire Ltd.

Answer 10

Despite a lack of a signature, the document is valid because it constituted an oral contract.