Law - Incorporation

It is first necessary to determine whether the clause has been incorporated as a term of the contract. Regarding to incorporation by signature, generally if China signed the contract, then they tend to be bound by the terms of the agreement, even if they did not read it, (L’Estrange v Graucob), where it was stated that the claimant would be bound by all the terms of the agreement because she signed it and the fact that she did not read the terms was irrelevant.
Incorporation by notice could also be applied in the case provided. For the term to be incorporated by notice, it is not necessary for Rocket to have actual notice of it. A reasonable notice will also be incorporated. In Thompson v LMS Railway, a reasonable man in the same circumstances would have had notice of it, therefore it was held that she was bound by the clause even though she could not have had notice of it due to disability, unless the company had been aware of her disability.
The determinants of reasonableness are listed in the following. Firstly, degree of notice required is an essential factor. In Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking, Lord Denning MR stated that the content of a clause can be significant when determining whether the notice given was reasonable. If it is unusual or particularly onerous then it seems a higher degree of notice would be required. Also, in Spurling v Bradshaw, he stated that some clauses which he has seen would have to be printed in red ink on the face of the document with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient. Therefore, it could be said that one of many printed in very small print on the back of the contract would be insufficient to be a reasonable notice. To satisfy the test of reasonableness for the unusual practice in the industry, the party who seeks to rely on the clause needs to bring it to the other parties’ attention. This could also be explained in Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto.
Secondly, the notice must be on a