Chapleton v Barry, Facts, Issue, Decision, Important Points

  • by

This case is concerned with the exclusion clauses and offer and acceptance in contract law

Facts of Chapleton v Barry

In this case there was a company named barry, who had displayed deck chairs on the beach for hire. It was written on the board next to the deck chair, that the chairs can be hired at 2d for three hours.

It was also written on the board that also take your tickets from the chair attendant

The claimant Chapleton took two deck Chairs and got his ticket. Unknown to him there was an exclusion clause behind the ticket which said that the company wouldn’t be liable for any personal injury caused.

The claimant got injured from the deck chair, because as he began to sat the fabric of the chair split away. The claimant suffered Personal Injury.

The claimant brought an action against the company. The Compnay wanted to rely on the exclusion clause written behind the ticket.


Whether the company could rely on the exclusion clause or not?


It was held that the company can’t rely on the exclusion clause, as the clause was not incorporated properly into the contract. As the Board which was next to the chairs was an offer and acceptance was made when he got the chair.

So exclusion clause cannot be incorporated after the contract has been made. And furthermore a reasonable person would only see ticket as receipt and wouldn’t consider it as contractual document so it was no place to write a clause.

Important Points of Chapleton v Barry

  • This case is an exception to the rule of Display of goods. As Display of goods are an Invitation to treat (ITT), but here the display of chairs were considered as an offer
  • The exclusion clause must be brought into consideration before the contract is formed.

Our Services:

  • If you want facts like these of any case you can request us by clicking here
  • We also provide first class law assignment writing service do check it here
  • And very soon we are going to launch first class law notes

Related Readings

Storer v Manchester city council

Gibson v Manchester City Council

Fisher v Bell

PSGB v boots cash chemists

Partridge v Crittenden

Wilkie v london passenger transport board