Katyi V. Eastfield Shopping Centre Case Summary

Kati v Eastfield Shopping Centre

Introduction
Kati has suffered loss and damages while her vehicle was under the liability of Eastfield Shopping Centre (ESC). Whether or not Kati can take a legal action for damages is dependent on there already being a contract between her and ESC and for ESC to have breached the contract. If so, then the main issue of concern is whether Kati will still be required to pay the administration fees as well as the repairs to her car. For Kati to be successful, ESC’s exclusion clause will have to be invalid for them to be held liable for the damages to Kati’s car.

Is the exclusion clause valid?
For the exclusion clause to be valid, it must be included as a term in the contract and cover the breach of liability

Whether Kati must pay the administration fees is dependent on whether she received sufficient notice of the terms and conditions of the contract. Aside from the damages to her car, ESC requires Kati to pay administration fees of up to $12,000 for breaching the contract. The issue with this is that Katie was not aware that ESC would tow her car if she left her car overnight, due to her not reading the terms and conditions. However, Kati only left her car overnight, as she was emotionally distraught after hearing that her vehicle was destroyed.

As Kati entered the valet parking and handed her keys to Angus in exchange for her ticket, consideration was provided making the contract enforceable in a court of law. Although Kati did not read the large notice sign, she implied her acceptance to the offer by continuing to act consistently with the terms of the offer, see Brambles Holdings Ltd v Bathurst City Council. Directly under the exclusion clause provided by ESC was a term stating that ‘PATRONS AGREE TO ABIDE BY ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS DISPLAYED OR COMMUNICATED’. ESC can also argue that whilst Kati was unaware that there were further terms and conditions included on the ticket, she should still be bound by the terms of the contract. This is demonstrated in Curtis v Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co, which demonstrates that Kati should be still bound by the terms of the contract even if she did not read them, provided that the terms

Kati could argue that she made a unilateral mistake, which ESC was fully aware and took advantage of. Whilst Kati was not aware of a fundamental term of the contract, the right of ESC to tow her car, she may find difficulty to prove that ESC did engaged in unconscionable conduct. Furthermore, the contract must be written and will become voidable not void, meaning that Kati can choose to end the contract but may have to pay any fees occurred up to that point. This is an alternative action available to Kati but it does not provide the most desirable