{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025031289111389236, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0025031289111389237, 'mean_word_length': 4.128205128205129, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Notice of Contractual Terms

One hundred years have passed since Mr. Parker went to collect his bag from the cloakroom at Charing Cross station, found that the bag was missing and that the cloakroom ticket bore a clause limiting the liability of the railway company to £10. The resultant litigation was neither the first nor the last of what have become known as the ticket cases, but the judgment of Mellish L.J. in the Court of Appeal in Parker v. S.E.Ry. has become the point from which most later judgments begin. Whether this centenary is a cause for celebrations or for shudders is a question that the reader must answer himself. This article seeks to trace and delineate the “embellishment and gloss” that have been added to the principles set out in Parker v. S.E. Ry. over the last century.