Multiple choice

Arun had deposited a bag in the cloak room of a railway station by paying Rs. 50. On the face of the ticket, issued to him. Were inscribed “see reverse for terms & conditions”. Clause 10 of the printed terms & conditions limited the liability of the company for loss of a baggage to Rs. 100. The bag was lost and Arun claimed Rs. 650 as its value.

  1. Arun was not bound by the conditions on the back of the ticket as he had not read them at all.

  2. Arun was bound by the conditions on the back of the ticket even if he had not read them.

  3. Arun was not bound by the conditions on the back of the ticket as his claim was 13 times more than the compensation offered to him by the railway company.

  4. Arun was bound by the conditions on the back of the ticket as he had not read them in full.
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

Under the rule in Parker v. South Eastern Railway (1877), exemption clauses on ticket backs are binding if reasonable notice is given. Arun is bound by the terms including Clause 10 because the notice 'see reverse for terms & conditions' was sufficient to put a reasonable person on inquiry. The liability is limited to Rs. 100 regardless of whether he actually read the terms.

Keep practicing — related questions