Legal Case Brief
Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council [1940] 1 KB 532
Hire of deck chair; effect of purported exclusion of liability on ticket
Facts
Chapelton wished to hire a deck chair and approached a pile of chairs owned by Barry Urban District Council (BUDC). A notice adjacent to the chairs detailed the cost of hire and advised customers to obtain tickets and retain them for inspection. Chapelton purchased tickets and placed them in his pocket. On one side of the tickets, the council purported to exclude liability for any accidents caused by hiring the chairs. Chapelton sat down and the canvas gave way. He sought damages from BUDC and it was held they had effectively excluded liability. Chapelton appealed.
Issues
Chapelton argued he had not been given sufficient notice of the clauses printed on the ticket and, therefore, he should not be bound by them. There was nothing on the notice adjacent to the chairs, or on the face of the ticket to alert customers’ attention to the clauses on the back. The ticket should be regarded as a receipt provided after the formation of the contract. BUDC contended Chapelton did have notice of the terms because the exclusion clause was clearly printed on the ticket. The notice adjacent to the deck chairs was merely an invitation to treat. The ticket was not merely a receipt but it amounted to a written contract detailing the terms by which the parties agreed to be bound.
Decision/Outcome
Chapelton’s appeal was successful. The ticket was held to be a receipt and the conditions by which BUDC were held to have offered the chairs for hire were those contained in the notice, and the notice did not contain any exclusion clause. BUDC had not, therefore, brought Chapelton’s attention to the clause and they could not rely on it.
Updated 19 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the facts, issues, and outcome of Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council [1940] 1 KB 532. The case remains good law and continues to be cited as a leading authority on incorporation of exemption clauses by notice, particularly on the question of whether a document is a contractual document or a mere receipt. The broader legal principles engaged — that an exclusion clause must be incorporated into the contract at or before the time of formation, and that a document which a reasonable person would regard as a receipt rather than a contractual document will not be sufficient to incorporate terms — remain firmly established in English contract law. Subsequent legislation, notably the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015, has significantly restricted the enforceability of exclusion clauses in many contexts, particularly in consumer contracts. Readers should be aware that in modern consumer disputes of this nature, statutory controls on exclusion clauses are likely to be at least as relevant as the common law incorporation rules illustrated by this case. The article does not address those statutory developments, but as a summary of the 1940 case itself it remains accurate.
