Who remembers Interfoto Picture Library v Stilletto Visual Programmes? It’s a contract case about incorporation of terms, in this case very onerous ones. The defendant borrowed transparencies from a lending library, the delivery note contained conditions providing for very high charges if the transparencies were not returned in 4 weeks. The defendant failed to read the terms and incurred a charge of over £3,700. On appeal the claimants were not able to sustain their claim, particularly onerous contractual terms have to be brought to the attention of the other party. This was not done. A very recent case has, obiter, made this clearer. Higgins v Evans stated that Interfoto did not create a general doctrine of unfairness in contract law. Interfoto is very unlikely to apply to a signed contract where all the terms are set out. Knowing this and referring to it in the right place could add a mark to a contract law LLB essay!
Oh, and if you did want to know what Higgins v Evans is about it’s relevant to LPC studies. It concerns a CFA (Conditional Fee Agreement). Very briefly the court allowed a solicitor to recover basic charges under a CFA where the client died before any recovery had been made. There was no right under the CFA for the client’s estate to pursue the claim in the event of his death and his family claimed that this amounted to an unfair term. The agreement had been very clear and they were unsuccessful.