- Mendelssohn v Normand Ltd [1970] 1 QB 177 (CA)
- Court of Appeal (England & Wales)
- Incorporation of terms, Exclusion clauses
Facts: Mendelssohn v Normand Ltd
Mr. Mendelssohn parked a Rolls-Royce (belonging to his friend) in the Cumberland Hotel garage, operated by Normand Ltd, before going to lunch. In the back seat was a suitcase with valuable jewellery, covered by a rug.
As he was about to lock the car, a garage attendant told him:
“You are not allowed to lock your car.”
Mr. Mendelssohn explained the suitcase was valuable and asked the attendant to lock the car after moving it, which the attendant agreed to do. He handed over the keys and went for lunch.
When Mr. Mendelssohn returned an hour later: The car had been moved.
The door was unlocked, the key was still in the ignition, and the suitcase was missing. He sued the garage company (Normand Ltd) for £200, claiming the theft happened while the car was in their care.
Issue
The main question was:
Was the garage company responsible, or were they protected by legal disclaimers (exclusion clauses)? A notice at the reception and a ticket both had terms saying the garage is not responsible for loss or damage.
Court of Appeal’s Judgment (Mendelssohn v Normand Ltd)
The Court held that the reception desk notice wasn’t valid. It wasn’t visible when dropping off the car, only later when paying. So, it wasn’t part of the contract.
The ticket was part of the contract. Mr. Mendelssohn had parked there many times and always received such tickets. Even if he hadn’t read the fine print, it was still considered a valid contract term.
However, there was an important exception. Mr. Mendelssohn had personally spoken to the attendant, who promised to lock the car. That oral promise contradicted the printed condition on the ticket.
Thus, the garage was liable for the loss of the suitcase.
Legal Principle
An oral promise from an employee can override a conflicting exclusion clause. Even if a business has written terms to avoid liability, it cannot rely on them if it makes a different verbal promise to the customer. The verbal promise will take effect.
References:
- https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/mendelssohn-v-normand.php
- https://swarb.co.uk/mendelssohn-v-normand-ltd-ca-1970/
- https://vlex.co.uk/vid/mendelssohn-v-normand-ltd-793098521
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:
- Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams [1957]: Innocent Misrepresentation
- Reg Glass Pty Ltd v Rivers Locking Systems Pty Ltd (1968)
- A Case Summary of Couchman v Hill [1947]
Ruchi is a legal research writer with an academic background in CA, MBA (Finance), and M.Com. She specializes in digesting and summarizing complex judicial decisions into clear and structured case notes for students and legal professionals.