J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw (1956)
J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3 is an English Court of Appeal decision on exclusion clauses, best known for Lord Denning's "red hand rule". The claimant, J. Spurling Ltd, was a London warehousing company; its name uses the related surname Spurling, not Spurlin.
Sourcing: strong 3 reference
The case takes its name from J. Spurling Ltd, a firm of warehousemen with a warehouse in East London. It uses the related surname Spurling, and nothing in the sources connects the company with Spurlin families.[1] It is included here because it is one of the best-known uses of the Spurling name in English law. For cases involving people named Spurlin, see Spurlin case law.
Facts
Andrew Bradshaw stored barrels of orange juice with J. Spurling Ltd. Wikipedia counts seven barrels, and the National Case Law Archive's summary counts eight wooden casks sent in June 1953.[1][2] The company's "landing account" receipt said that conditions printed on the back applied. Those conditions exempted the warehousemen from liability for loss or damage however caused, even by negligence.[2] When the casks were collected in April 1954, five were allegedly empty, one held dirty water and two were leaking badly.[2] Bradshaw refused to pay the storage charges. The company sued for £61 12s 6d, and he counterclaimed £180 for negligent storage.[2]
Decision
The Court of Appeal (Denning, Morris and Parker LJJ) held that the clause was part of the contract. Bradshaw had received similar documents in earlier dealings, so the terms were incorporated, and they protected the warehousemen against his negligence claim. The appeal was dismissed.[1][2][3] Denning LJ added that exempting clauses do not protect a party who commits a breach going to the root of the contract. Examples included storing goods in the wrong place or delivering them to the wrong person. Mere negligence in storage was not such a breach.[2] The House of Lords later rejected that "fundamental breach" reasoning in Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd (1980).[1]
The "red hand rule"
The case is best remembered for Denning LJ's remark that the more unreasonable a clause is, the more notice of it must be given. Some clauses, he said, would need to be "printed in red ink ... with a red hand pointing to it" before notice could be sufficient. This is known as the red hand rule.[1][2]
See also
- Spurlin in American case law · History strong
A guide to published American appellate decisions with a party named Spurlin, from an 1818 North Carolina dispute over a whiskey still to 21st-century cases on public records, county government and bankruptcy crime. Each summary is drawn from the opinion's own text. - Spurling (surname) · The Surname strong
Spurling is the fuller spelling from which Spurlin derives. Unlike Spurlin, it is well established in England, Australia and especially Bermuda as well as the United States. - The Spurlin name outside the United States · Culture strong
Spurlin is an overwhelmingly American surname today, with about 98% of bearers in the United States. The spelling is older than American settlement: English archives record Spurlins in Middlesex and Bristol between 1670 and 1717, and 18th-century leases name a field called 'Spurlins' in Hertfordshire. Outside the U.S. the related form Spurling is far more common.
References
- ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw — Wikipedia — Citations, judges, facts, red hand rule, later rejection of fundamental-breach doctrine Reference
- ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw 1956 EWCA Civ 3 (26 March 1956) — National Case Law Archive (LawCases.net) — Detailed case summary: dates, casks, sums claimed, reasoning of each judge Reference
- ↑ Spurling v Bradshaw — e-lawresources.co.uk — Case summary: incorporation through previous dealings Reference
Last reviewed 2026-09-24.