Contract law notes

1. Topic:
Olleyv.Marlborough
CourtLtd.,[1949].
Submitted to: Dr Tauseef Iqbal
Group members:
DAUD BIN BASHARAT: 1570
ROOFA NASEER: 1550
• ALIZA MUHAMMAD: 1549

2. CaseHistory
Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd
Court of Appeal
03 December 1948
Case Analysis
Where Reported [1949] 1 K.B. 532; [1949] Official Transcript;
Case Digest Subject: Negligence Other related subjects: Contracts
Keywords: Exclusion clauses(A contract term that excuses or exempts a party from
liability under some circumstances); Hotels; Intention to create legal
relations; Notices; Theft.
The appellant hotel owner (M) appealed against a decision ( [1948] 1 All E.R. 955 )
that it had negligently allowed the theft of the possessions of the respondent guest
(O) from its hotel.

3. Briefof thecase
One day, plaintiff ordinarily left her key on the rack at the reception and
went out of the hotel. In meantime some things got stolen from her
room. However, hotel staff had not noticed anything. Consequently,
plaintiff brought an action against the hotel for negligence that resulted
in the loss of her coat. In response, the hotel relied on the notice which
they claimed was part of the contract, and appealed in the court of
appeal against a decision ( [1948] 1 All E.R. 955 ) which was in favor
of Mrs Olley. Olley v. Marlborough Court Ltd., [1949]. The hotel
also argued that Olley had been contributorily negligent by depositing
her key on the board in reception

4. Facts
•A notice of the rear of a hotel
room door excluded liability for
items stolen from the room.
•Some items were stolen due to
the hotel’s negligence.

5. Issues
Had the notice been incorporated
into the parties’ contract?

6. Judge: Bucknill LJ; Denning LJ; Singleton LJ
Held: Appeal dismissed.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Marlborough
Court Ltd’s appeal. Firstly, they held that the
hotel had been negligent and their negligence
caused the customer a reasonably foreseeable
damage. Secondly, the notice could not
become part of the contract, since the
contract between the parties had been
established at the reception desk, when Mrs.
Olley paid and in return received the room
key. At that time, Mrs. Olley could not have
been aware of the notice displayed in her
room. Lastly, the terms of the clause were
not plain enough for the court to be effective.
Therefore, in the final judgement of Olley v
Marlborough Court Ltd, Mrs. Olley’s claim for
her coat recovery was successful.
Judgement

7. • When Mrs. Olley put the key of her room on the hook
in the reception office, she put it in charge of the hotel
company. It gave access to her room, and it was their
duty to take reasonable care to see that it was not
taken by any unauthorized person.
• At common law the hotel company are liable for that
loss unless they prove that they took reasonable care
of the key. They have not proved it. They did not call
either the receptionist or the porter to explain how the
key came to be taken
• In my opinion, notices put up in bedrooms do not of
themselves make a contract. As a rule, the guest does
not see them until after he has been accepted as a
guest.
• Not only must the terms of the contract be clearly
proved, but also the intention to create legal relations
- the intention to be legally bound - must also be
clearly proved. The best way of proving it is by a
written document signed by the party to be bound.
Another way is by handing him before or at the time of
the contract a written notice specifying its terms and
making it clear to him that the contract is on those
terms.
Rationaleof
Judgement