Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1987] EWCA Civ 6 (12 November 1987)

The holding fee clause was particularly onerous and unusual. The plaintiffs did not take sufficient steps to bring this clause fairly to the defendants' attention. Therefore, the clause was not incorporated into the contract, and the defendants are only liable for a reasonable sum on a quantum meruit basis.

Citation: [1987] EWCA Civ 6
Parties: Plaintiff/respondent: Interfoto Picture Library Limited; Defendant/appellant: Stiletto Visual Programmes Limited
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 12 November 1987
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome: Appeal allowed
Legal Topics: Incorporation of Terms, Notice of Unusual Terms, Onerous Contractual Clauses, Quantum Meruit

Contract Law Incorporation of Terms Notice of Unusual Terms Onerous Contractual Clauses Quantum Meruit

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

Interfoto Picture Library Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Stiletto Visual Programmes Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether an onerous contractual term (holding fee) was incorporated into the contract between the parties
2 Whether sufficient notice of the onerous term was given to the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

Judgment for the plaintiff reduced to a quantum meruit basis: £3.50 per transparency per week for the period of late return.
Of payment in court, £2,493.70 to be paid out to plaintiff; the balance to be paid out to the defendant.