Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd (1971) 2 QB 163

Thornton drove his car into an automatic car park which he was using for the first time. He received a ticket from an automatic machine, which referred to conditions which were displayed on the premises. One of those conditions excluded Shoe Lane's liability for any injury suffered on the premises. Thornton was not aware of the conditions. He was injured and so sued the defendant.

The court held that the exclusion clause was not part of the contract. Shoe Lane had not taken reasonable steps to bring the clause to Thornton's attention before he entered the contract when he was purchasing the ticket. The judges drew attention to the "width" or "stringency" of the clause, and stated that more notice was required for such terms. The ticket cases did not apply here, because Thornton was given no chance to negotiate or return the ticket or any of its terms. Therefore the exclusion clause did not protect Shoe Lane.

This study area has been created by our experts to help students with Contract Law Essay and Problem Questions. If you require further help with your question, why not order a fully customised model answer on which to base your assignment? Use our online order form to submit your request and you could have a complete model answer written to your specification within 24 hours.

Back to Law Cases