Facts
Miss Harriet Mary L'Estrange had a cafe in Great Ormes Road, Llandudno. Two travelling salesmen, Mr Page and Mr Berse, representing Mr Graucob's slot machine business in City Road, London, came to visit her. She was persuaded to purchase a"Please forward me as soon as possible: One Six Column Junior Ilam Automatic Machine... which I agree to purchase from you on the terms stated below...."Further along, in small print, an exclusion clause was stated:
"This agreement contains all the terms and conditions under which I agree to purchase the machine specified above, and any express or implied condition, statement, or warranty, statutory or otherwise not stated herein is hereby excluded.) H. M. L'Estrange."She did not read the document. She was supposed to pay for the machine in instalments. But after machine was delivered it got jammed and did not work, despite mechanics coming to fix it. Miss L'Estrange thus refused to continue paying her installments and brought an action in the Carnarvonshire County Court at Llandudno for the sums already paid, arguing the machine was not fit for purpose. Mr Graucob contended that any warranties for fitness were expressly excluded by the contractual agreement she signed.
Judgment
County Court
The judge held, following the Lord Herschell LC in '' Richardson, Spence & Co v Rowntree'', that Mr Graucob was not entitled to rely on the exclusion clause. Lord Herschell had asked three questions: (1) Did the plaintiff know that there was writing or printing on the document? (2) Did she know that the writing or printing contained conditions relating to the terms of the contract? (3) Did the defendants do what was reasonably sufficient to give the plaintiff notice of the conditions? The judge held that question (3) was not satisfied. Mr Graucob appealed. Alfred Thompson Denning, at that time a barrister, represented F Graucob Ltd. Fifty years later, as Master of the Rolls, Denning described the case as emblematic of a "bleak winter for our law of contract" in his judgment on ''_Court_of_Appeal
Thomas_Edward_Scrutton">Scrutton_LJ_found_the_exclusion_clause_formed_part_of_the_contract._It_was_immaterial_that_L'Estrange_had_not_read_the_clause._The_fact_that_she_signed_it_meant_that_she_was_bound_by_it._She_is_deemed_to_have_read_and_agreed_to_the_terms_of_the_contract. Frederic_Maugham,_1st_Viscount_Maugham.html" ;"title="Thomas_Edward_Scrutton.html" ;"title="9832 AC 803 is a case concerning the sale of goods and exclusion clauses. It was decided under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Sale of Goods Act 1979. ...Court of Appeal
Thomas Edward Scrutton">Scrutton LJ found the exclusion clause formed part of the contract. It was immaterial that L'Estrange had not read the clause. The fact that she signed it meant that she was bound by it. She is deemed to have read and agreed to the terms of the contract. Frederic Maugham, 1st Viscount Maugham">Maugham LJ concurred, though expressing his regret at the result. He held he was bound to do so. He said the only two possibilities were that the document was signed non est factum, or that the document was induced to be signed by a misrepresentation.Significance
The case still holds significance, not because it would be decided the same today in relation to a consumer, but because it establishes the basic principle that one is bound by their signature, as a general starting point. This is particularly important among businesses. If the same facts arose again today, the case would be regulated by unfair terms legislation, and Miss L'Estrange would have won, despite having signed. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 section 14(3) implies that goods for sale have a warranty from the seller as to their fitness. Between two businesses dealing as commercial parties of equal bargaining strength, this term could be excluded. But when one party is a consumer, theSee also
*''Notes
{{Reflist, 2References
*J Spencer, ‘Signature, Consent, and the Rule in L’Estrange v Graucob’ [1973] Cambridge Law Journal 104 Lord Denning cases English incorporation case law Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases 1934 in British law 1934 in case law