CASE Brief - just some tutorial work PDF

Preview

Summary

just some tutorial work...

Description

TITLE - Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd CITATION - [1988] 1 All ER 348 APPELLANT - Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd RESPONDENT – Interfoto Picture Library Ltd COURT – Court of appeal, Civil Division FACTS – Initially, the appellant (A) required 1950’s photographs for a presentation on the 5th of March 1984. 47 of these transparencies were dispatched by Interfoto Picture Library (R) and on the delivery note it was noted that these transparencies were to be returned by the 19th of March, nine printed conditions were written into four columns. Most notably, it was noted that there will be a holding fee of £5.4300 plus VAT per day for each transparency which is kept by the (A) for longer than 14 days. These were not used and were left to aside and were returned to at 2 April. An invoice of £3,783.4350 was sent to (A) however they refused to pay. The judge of the trial ordered (A) to pay this with interest and costs. However, (A) appealed and the judge decided that on a ‘quantum meruit’ £3.4350 would have been the reasonable charge, rather than £3,783-4350 and interest of £1,508-4352. ISSUE – Were the conditions that were set to (A) given in a reasonable manner? RESULT – The appeal was accepted, and the fee was reduced from £3,783.4350 with interests and costs to a more reasonable charge of £3.4350 per transparency per week for their holding. REASONS – The reasons given from Bingham LJ is that “the plaintiffs did not do what was necessary to draw this unreasonable and extortionate clause fairly to their attention.” This means that (R) expected the (A) to read all of the conditions on the delivery note which was in the jiffy bag with the transparencies, as it is unlikely that a delivery note would contain terms of a contract, terms which were not mentioned on the phone when the initial order was being placed as well as at 3.10pm on the 5th of March when Mr Beeching

1

received the transparencies and had rang to inform them his interest in a couple of the transparencies. The holding fee was also very high, the judge had mentioned that on a ‘quantum mertuit’ the reasonable amount to be charged would be £3.4350 per transparency per week rather than £5 per day, which is more than most of their competitors as they generally charge less than £3.4350 per week. THOUGHTS – I believe that (R) did not do enough to inform (A) of condition two, and to have contractual terms on a delivery note is unfair and extorting the consumer as (R) fees are reasonably higher than their competitors. This is unjust and unprofessional, there was no mention on the phone of the conditions and no effort was made to direct (A) to these conditions, despite being in contact twice on the phone. If this had been done, this may not have gone to trial. But it is the wrongdoing of (R), who did not inform (A) of these conditions.

2...