Legal Case Summary
Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877) 2 CPD 416
Deposit of bag in railway cloak room; effect of exclusion clause on ticket and on notice
Facts
Parker paid to leave his bag in the cloakroom of South Eastern Railway (SER). There was a notice within the cloakroom stating that SER would not be responsible for any deposits exceeding £10. in value. The tickets given to customers on making their deposit had the same notice printed on them in legible writing. Parker’s bag exceeded 10l. in value and it was lost or stolen. Parker successfully claimed against SER for his lost bag and SER appealed.
Issues
Parker argued he had not seen the notice in the cloak room and had not read the terms on the ticket, but had simply placed it into his pocket believing it to be a mere receipt for his deposited goods. As such, SER should not be able to rely on the exclusion clause because it would be unreasonable to expect customers to know that a receipt for deposited goods contains special conditions. SER claimed it was irrelevant whether Parker had read the notice or the ticket, because a party could still be bound by a contract irrespective of whether he had read its terms. They argued they had taken sufficient steps to bring the terms to customers’ attention.
Decision/Outcome
A re-trial was ordered. The judge’s direction at first instance that Parker was not bound by terms he had failed to read was incorrect. Parker would not be bound by terms he did not know were printed on the ticket, but where he knew there were terms on the ticket, or that there was writing on the ticket, he would be bound providing the jury were satisfied he had been given sufficient notice.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately states the facts, issues, and outcome of Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877) 2 CPD 416. The principles established in this case — concerning the incorporation of contractual terms by notice, and the distinction between a party who is unaware that a document contains conditions and one who knows there is writing on the document — remain good law and continue to be applied in English contract law.
It should be noted, however, that the broader area of exclusion clauses and unfair contract terms has been substantially developed by statute since 1877. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 now impose significant restrictions on the use of exclusion clauses, particularly in consumer contracts. The 2015 Act consolidates and supersedes much of the 1977 Act’s consumer-facing provisions. Students should therefore treat this case as establishing common law principles on notice and incorporation, while being aware that statutory controls would today heavily regulate the kind of clause in issue. The case summary does not address these statutory developments, but this does not affect the accuracy of what it does cover.
