Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd
Encyclopedia
Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1987] EWCA Civ 6 is an English contract law
case on onerous clauses and the rule of common law that reasonable notice of them must be given to a contracting party in order that they be effective. It also addressed, but did not decide, the position of onerous clauses as disguised penalties (which are ineffective at common law).
Bingham LJ held that the clause was not valid. It was ‘a venial period of delay [for] an inordinate liability.’ The issue was, he said,
He advocated embracing good faith - ‘showing up your cards’, ‘fair dealing’, and so on. On penalty clauses, Bingham LJ noted at the end of his decision,
English contract law
English contract law is a body of law regulating contracts in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth , and the United States...
case on onerous clauses and the rule of common law that reasonable notice of them must be given to a contracting party in order that they be effective. It also addressed, but did not decide, the position of onerous clauses as disguised penalties (which are ineffective at common law).
Facts
Interfoto delivered 47 photographic transparencies to Stiletto in a jiffy bag. Stiletto was planning to use them for a presentation, but in the event it did not. It never opened the transparency bag or read Interfoto's standard terms and conditions, which were inside the bag. Condition 2 said there was a holding fee of £5 for each day over fourteen days. After around a month, Interfoto sent a bill for £3,783.50.Judgment
The Court of Appeal held that the holding fee was ineffective. Dillon LJ said that a ‘particularly onerous or unusual’ term must have special notice. However, Interfoto was entitled to a small restitutionary charge of £3.50 per transparency per week for their holding.Bingham LJ held that the clause was not valid. It was ‘a venial period of delay [for] an inordinate liability.’ The issue was, he said,
He advocated embracing good faith - ‘showing up your cards’, ‘fair dealing’, and so on. On penalty clauses, Bingham LJ noted at the end of his decision,
See also
- AEG (UK) Ltd v Logic Resource Ltd [1996] CLC 265
- O'Brien v MGN Ltd [2002] CLC 33, [23], Hale LJ said the words ‘onerous or unusual’ are not ‘terms of art’
- OFT v Abbey [2008] EWHC 875 (Comm)