Legal Case Summary
Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd [1949] 1 KB 532
Validity of notice in hotel room purporting to exclude liability for lost or stolen articles
Facts
Olley was a guest in the defendant hotel. On arrival, Olley paid for a week’s board in advance and then went to the room. In the room, a notice was displayed stating the proprietors would not be responsible for any items lost or stolen, unless handed to them for safe keeping. Olley left the room and deposited her key on the board in reception before leaving the hotel. The key was taken and several items were stolen from her room. Olley sought damages in negligence.
Issues
Olley contended the hotel were negligent in failing to appropriately safeguard the keys to guest rooms. She further claimed there was an implied term within the contract between herself and the hotel that they would take reasonable care of her property in her bedroom. Olley asserted the failure to supervise the keys amounted to a breach of that contract. The hotel argued the guests were bound by the terms displayed on the notice in the bedrooms, and therefore, the hotel had effectively excluded liability even if they had been negligent. The notice was clearly visible in the bedrooms and the exclusion clause unambiguously absolved the hotel of any liability for stolen items. The hotel also argued that Olley had been contributorily negligent by depositing her key on the board in reception.
Decision / Outcome
Olley was successful in her claim and recovered the cost of the stolen items in their entirety. The exclusion clause had not been successfully incorporated into the contract because the contract was concluded at reception, and the notice purporting to exclude liability was not visible until after the contract was formed, when the guest entered the bedroom.
Updated 20 March 2026
This summary of Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd [1949] 1 KB 532 remains accurate as a statement of the common law principles it established. The core rule — that an exclusion clause must be incorporated into a contract before or at the time of formation, and that a notice displayed only after the contract is concluded cannot bind the other party — continues to represent good law and is regularly cited in contract law teaching and in cases concerning incorporation of terms.
Readers should note, however, that the broader legal landscape governing exclusion clauses has changed significantly since 1949. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and, for consumer contracts, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 now impose important statutory controls on exclusion clauses that go beyond the common law incorporation rules discussed in this case. In a modern consumer context, even a clause successfully incorporated at the time of contracting may be rendered ineffective if it fails to satisfy the relevant statutory fairness or reasonableness requirements. The 2015 Act is particularly relevant to hotel guests, who will ordinarily be contracting as consumers. These statutory regimes are not discussed in the article, which focuses solely on the incorporation point decided in Olley itself.
