Facts
- Mrs. Olley checked into the Marlborough Court Hotel, registering and paying for a week’s accommodation at the reception desk.
- After completing check-in and entering her assigned room, Mrs. Olley saw a notice on the back of the door stating, "The proprietors will not hold themselves responsible for articles lost or stolen unless handed to the manageress for safe custody."
- During her stay, a stranger entered her room and stole several items, including a mink coat.
- Mrs. Olley claimed the hotel was liable for the loss, alleging breach of contract and negligence.
- The hotel argued reliance on the notice in the bedroom as an exclusion clause to avoid liability.
Issues
- Whether the notice displayed inside the hotel room, after the formation of the contract at reception, effectively excluded the hotel's liability for stolen guest property.
- Whether contractual terms can be incorporated by notice after the contract has already been formed.
Decision
- The Court of Appeal found in favour of Mrs. Olley, holding the contract was formed at the reception desk before she saw the notice in her room.
- The exclusion clause displayed in the room was not incorporated into the contract as it was only brought to Mrs. Olley’s attention after the contract was made.
- The hotel remained liable for the loss due to their failure to exercise reasonable care.
- The court reaffirmed that for a term to be incorporated by notice, it must be brought to the other party’s attention before or at the time of contract formation.
Legal Principles
- Terms, especially exclusion or limitation clauses, must be notified to the contracting party before or at the time the contract is formed to be incorporated.
- Notices or documents containing terms presented after contract formation are ineffective to incorporate new terms.
- A consistent and regular course of dealing or an explicit signature may also incorporate terms, but timing remains essential for notices.
- Precedent distinctions: L'Estrange v Graucob highlights the signature rule for incorporation; Parker v South Eastern Railway and British Crane Hire v Ipswich Plant Hire demonstrate requirements for reasonable notice and regular dealings; Hollier v Rambler Motors and McCutcheon v MacBrayne stress the need for consistency in previous dealings.
Conclusion
Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd established that exclusion clauses must be brought to the notice of the party before or at the time of the contract’s formation to be effective; terms introduced only after formation do not bind the parties, reinforcing the importance of clarity and proper procedure in contracting.