The Parking Lot

Yusef Ali parked his automobile in a parking lot owned by the Dumas Corporation. At the request of the parking-lot attendant, he left his keys at the attendant's office and received a numbered ticket as his receipt for the payment of the parking fee. Before leaving his keys with the attendant, he made certain that the doors of the vehicle were securely locked, as he had left a number of valuable books on the rear seat of the car.

 

Unknown to Ali, the attendant closed the lot at midnight. Then he delivered the keys to the cars on the lot to the attendant of the parking lot across the street. This lot was also owned by the Dumas Corporation, but it remained open until 2:00 a.m.

 

Ali returned to the parking lot to retrieve his automobile shortly after midnight, only to discover no attendant in charge and his vehicle missing. By chance, he noticed the attendant on duty at the lot across the street. Ali reported the missing vehicle to him, and found the attendant in possession of his keys.

 

The police discovered Ali's automobile a few days later in another part of the city. The vehicle had been damaged and stripped of its contents, including Ali's rare books.

 

Ali brought an action against the Dumas Corporation for his loss. However, the company denied liability on the basis that the ticket (which Ali received at the time of delivery of the keys) read: "Rental of space only. Not responsible for loss or damage to car or contents however caused." Dumas also alleged that the attendant's office had a sign posted near the entrance that bore the same message.

 

Identify the issues in this case and prepare the arguments that Ali and the Dumas Corporation might use in their claim and defence respectively.

 

Render a decision

 

The court will rule in favor of Ali and award damages for the lost car.

Step-by-step explanation

The legal issue is whether there exists a valid and enforceable exclusion clause

An exclusion clause is a phrase in a contract that restricts or excludes the liability of a party to a violation of the contract. In order for the exclusion clause to e binding and enforceable on the parties, the exclusion clause must be;

• Be incorporated into the contract as a term
• Pass the test of construction
• Must not be rendered unenforceable by the statutory provisions

Incorporation can be achieved by signature, notification or previous transactions. Incorporation by signature, according to L'Estrange v E. Graucob Ltd(1934) case, the exclusion clause contained in the agreement signed by the party to the contract means that it is integrated into the contract, In the case of unsigned contract, the existence of the provision must be adequately informed and brought to the customer's attention. Warning of the clause must be brought to the attention of the other party before the contract is concluded. According to the cases of Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visula Programmes Ltd (1989) and Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd(1971) it was ruled that the exclusion clause should draw the attention of the other party due to its placement or size.

The feature of construction implies that the clause must be understood only in terms of its natural and ordinary meaning. According to George Mitchel (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds (1983) case, any uncertainty would result in the application by the court of the clause against the party that added the clause in the contract.

The third factor is that it must not be unenforceable by the statutory rules and consumer rights. An exclusion clause that contravenes legislative requirement is invalid and can not be enforced.

Dumas Corporation in their defense will argue the exclusion clause limits its liability for losses whatsoever caused to customer cars. They will rely on the court to enforce the exclusion clause and limit its liability for lost car. If the court deems the exclusion clause valid nd enforceable, they will rule in their favor and thus they will not be liable for loss of Ali's car.

In conclusion the exclusion clause in Dumas Corporation contract is invalid and unenforceable in court of law. The presence of the exclusion clause was not communicated to Ali prior to entering into the contract. It was not placed in a conspicuous place nor notification given, thus it can not pass the test of incorporation. Additionally, the exclusion clause is not specific on the liability it is limiting. it is ambiguous and unclear. Thus the court will determine against the party that inserted the clause. The court will rule in favor of Ali and award damages for the lost car.