Spurling v Bradshaw
Terms can be incorporated by a consistent course of dealing, and the more unreasonable a clause, the greater the notice required.
Facts
Mr Bradshaw had dealt with Spurling, warehousemen, for many years. He delivered eight barrels of orange juice to them for storage. A few days later he received a document acknowledging receipt, which stated on its back that the warehousemen would not be liable for any loss or damage however caused, even if due to their negligence. Similar documents had been sent to him in previous dealings, although he had never read them. When he collected the barrels, some were empty and others contained dirty water. He refused to pay the storage charges, and the warehousemen sued.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the exclusion clause was incorporated and protected the warehousemen. Although the document was sent after the contract for this particular storage was made, the clause had been incorporated by the consistent course of dealing between the parties over many years, in which Mr Bradshaw had received similar documents. Denning LJ added that the more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice that must be given of it, and that some clauses would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to them before the notice could be held sufficient. This one did not.
Related cases on exclusion clauses and unfair terms
- Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v The King [1952] AC 192
- Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council [1940] 1 KB 532
- Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co [1951] 1 KB 805
- Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank plc [2001] UKHL 52, [2002] 1 AC 481
- George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd [1983] 2 AC 803
- Goodlife Foods Ltd v Hall Fire Protection Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1371
- Hollier v Rambler Motors (AMC) Ltd [1972] 2 QB 71
- Hopcraft v Close Brothers Ltd [2025] UKSC 33
Studying contract law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
