About: Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : yago:WikicatEnglishUnfairTermsCases, within Data Space : dbpedia.org:8891 associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon
http://dbpedia.org:8891/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FThornton_v_Shoe_Lane_Parking_Ltd

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.

AttributesValues
rdf:type
rdfs:label
  • Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd (en)
rdfs:comment
  • 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. (en)
name
  • Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd (en)
dcterms:subject
Wikipage page ID
Wikipage revision ID
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
sameAs
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
citations
  • [1971] 2 QB 163; [1971] 1 All ER 686; (en)
court
  • Court of Appeal (en)
full name
  • FRANCIS CHARLES WILLIAM THORNTON Plaintiff Respondent and SHOE LANE PARKING LIMITED Defendants Appellants (en)
judges
  • Lord Denning MR, Megaw LJ and Sir Gordon Willmer (en)
keywords
  • Incorporation; offer and acceptance (en)
has abstract
  • 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). (en)
date decided
gold:hypernym
prov:wasDerivedFrom
page length (characters) of wiki page
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage of
is Wikipage redirect of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git139 as of Feb 29 2024


Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE     Content Formats:   [cxml] [csv]     RDF   [text] [turtle] [ld+json] [rdf+json] [rdf+xml]     ODATA   [atom+xml] [odata+json]     Microdata   [microdata+json] [html]    About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3331 as of Sep 2 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (62 GB total memory, 48 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software