Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461

J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3 is an English contract law and English property law case on exclusion clauses and bailment. It is best known for Denning LJ's red hand rule comment where he said,

“I quite agree that the more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it. Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink on the face of the document with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient".

Since almost all parking case turn on the issue of whether the signs were clear and unambiguous, this is a case to use where you believe they were not. 


Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

To support the issue of whether the signs were clear, you can also refer to CPUTR 2008 which says

A misleading omission is a commercial practice that:
  • omits material information
  • hides material information
  • provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or
  • fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already apparent from the context,
and as a result causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision they would not have taken otherwise.
Often signs are missing, vandalised or don't actually mean what the parking company says they mean. (see Forbidding signs). A common "omission" is to hide a term in small print surrounded by larger but irrelevant text.


Have more questions? Submit a request


Please sign in to leave a comment.
Powered by Zendesk