North South University

MBA Program
Summer 2021

Prepared for:

Professor Dr. Mohammad Nazmuzzaman Bhuian

Prepared By:

Afsana Manwar Nawrin

ID: 1925134660

Course Name: Business Law and Ethics

Course Code: (Bus 518)
Section: 3
Case:
‘X’, purchased a steamer ticket for travelling from Dhaka to Barisal and on the back of the
ticket, certain conditions were printed one of which excluded the liability of the Steamer
Company for loss or injury to the passengers or their luggage. The conditions were printed in
small type. ‘X’ never looked at the back of the ticket and there was nothing to draw his attention
to the conditions printed on the backside. His luggage was lost due to negligence of the servants
of the Steamer Company. Advise ‘X’.

Issues:
 Did Mr. X know about the conditions were printed one of which excluded the liability of
the Steamer Company for loss or injury to the passengers or their luggage?
 Was he agreed with the conditions?
 Was there any breach of the conditions?
 Is Mr. X eligible for getting any compensation on any legal ground?
Rule:
There is some specific rule of Reasonable Notice under Protective device,
 It is the duty of the person delivering documents to give adequate notice to the offeree of
the printed terms and conditions.
 When it is not done, the acceptor will not be bound by those terms.
 The person to whom it is delivered should know that the contract is supposed to have
conditions.

Analysis:
In the scenario X had purchased the ticket for Dhaka to Barisal whereas on the back of the ticket
certain terms were mentioned regarding the liability of the steamer company related to the loss of
baggage or injury to the passenger and the points were not highlighted properly to draw attention
to the one who purchased it. Relatively the bag of Mr.X got lost due to the negligence of their
servants.
On the other hand, the steamer company wrote in the back of the ticket that if anything got missing
of any passenger for that they are not responsible for it but Mr.X didn’t check the back of the ticket
also the terms and conditions part was not highlighted to draw the attention.

https://advocatespedia.com/Standard_Form_Contracts?fbclid=IwAR0LSxcF_sKneJz8l2GYfiDn76CAj5SgQ
DlNO4tIYDAcV-Nd0iYqtF7T2d8
According to the rule which was based on the case by house of the Lordin 1875 2Sc & Div 470:
(1875) 32LT 709 (HL) The plaintiff purchased a steamer ticket on the essence of which were
printed sure conditions one of which avoided the obligation of the organization for misfortune,
injury or postponement to the traveler or his baggage. The offended party had not seen the back of
the ticket, nor was there any sign on the essence of about the conditions on the back. The offended
party's baggage was lost in the wreck brought about by the deficiency of the organization's
workers. He was held qualified for recuperate his misfortune from the organization disregarding
the exclusion statement. The House of Lords saw that the offended party couldn't be said to have
acknowledged a term which he has not seen or of which he knew nothing and not composed upon
the essence of the ticket introduced to it. The outcome would have been in any case words like
"For conditions see back" had been imprinted on the substance of its pass to cause the passenger
to notice where the conditions were printed. Notice will be viewed as adequate in the event that it
will pass on to the individual overall that the ticket has conditions.
So, here we can see similar case. Where Mr.X didn’t notice the back of the ticket where the steamer
company’s terms and conditions were written. The servant of the company lost Mr.X’s luggage.
 The terms and conditions were written which were very small to get noticed by the
passenger Mr.X.
 Company didn’t communicate to the passengers to give them clear view. They didn’t
take any steps to draw the attentions of the passengers.
 The language was lost by the steamer servant for their negligence.
After analyzing both the cases, it is recommended that as per contract act and its related provision
Mr.X entitled to recover damage for the loss of his luggage from the steamer company.

Conclusion:
The steamer company did not make a valid contract from their end and it was not communicated
to Mr.X. Without prior knowledge about the contract, Mr.X didn’t accept the terms and conditions.
So, condition for entering into a contract wasn’t fulfilled. Since there was no acceptance, it was
not valid for Mr.X. Hence, it was not a valid contract and so there cannot be any breach of contract.
Mr.X has the legal ground to claim compensation.