paper cup said:
Balmain as in Balmain New Ferry Co Ltd
Could someone give me maybe some pointers on this. Thanks
This case is pertinent in two areas: torts and contracts.
In torts, it discusses the extent of false imprisonment -- in this case whether he really was falsely imprisoned, whether he had a reasonable means of escape (swimming), etc.
However with regard to contracts, the case deals with identifying the terms of the contract. Specifically, terms can be implied into a contract through previous dealings. If I recall correctly, because the man had used the ferry service many times before, he was taken to have been aware of the terms on the notice.