Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Thornton_v_Shoe_Lane_Parking_Ltd an entity of type: Abstraction100002137
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ 2 is a leading English contract law case. It gives a good example of the rule that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded, without reasonable notice before. Also, it was held that an automatic ticket machine was an offer, rather than an invitation to treat.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd
rdf:langString
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd
xsd:integer
10063525
xsd:integer
1099080949
rdf:langString
[1971] 2 QB 163; [1971] 1 All ER 686;
rdf:langString
Court of Appeal
rdf:langString
FRANCIS CHARLES WILLIAM THORNTON Plaintiff Respondent and SHOE LANE PARKING LIMITED Defendants Appellants
rdf:langString
Lord Denning MR, Megaw LJ and Sir Gordon Willmer
rdf:langString
Incorporation; offer and acceptance
rdf:langString
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ 2 is a leading English contract law case. It gives a good example of the rule that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded, without reasonable notice before. Also, it was held that an automatic ticket machine was an offer, rather than an invitation to treat. Although the case is important for these two propositions, today any exclusion of negligence liability for personal injury by businesses is prohibited by the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 s 2(1) and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 Sch 2, para(a).
xsd:date
1970-12-18
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
10869