This recent case demonstrates a £1,000,000 reason to have awesome terms and conditions in place and to perhaps review your current terms and conditions!
The High Court has dismissed a claim for summary judgment for £1 million against Camelot, the operator of an online “instant win” game under the well known brand National Lottery.
The claimant argued that she was entitled to the £1 million prize in addition to a £10 prize.
That was because an interim and optional animated screen display (of which she had taken a screen shot) showed that she had also won the larger sum.
The Claimant’s Screen Shot –
“The Claimant was also astute enough to see that there was a second apparent match. The number “1” appears in both the top line and the bottom line, and the Prize for that was “£1 MIL”. Yet, these numbers had not flashed, despite the description in the Game Procedures of what would happen if she had won, and the screen was telling her something different – that she had won £10.”
The defendant refused to pay out, saying that a coding issue had generated an error in the software responsible for the animated display.
Camelot said that its website terms made it clear that the interim animated display was irrelevant to the question of whether a player had won a prize.
The Judge dismissed the application for summary judgment on the following grounds:
✔️Incorporation of website terms. Camelot’s website terms were properly incorporated into Camelot’s online contract with the claimant by means of hyperlinks and drop-down terms. The website terms on which Camelot relied were not unusual or onerous, and were clearly drafted, so did not require any special treatment to bring them to the attention of the claimant.
✔️ Fairness of the website terms. None of the website terms on which the defendant relied to avoid liability were unfair in terms of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/2083) (would now be under Consumer Rights Act 2015).
✔️ Interpretation of the website terms. On a proper interpretation of all the website terms, it was only the amount shown on the final screen display and on Camelot’s official list of winning numbers that was conclusive as to the amount won by anyone playing the game.
While the decision involves the application of settled law to specific drafting in a particular context, the judge’s analysis of the three principal issues and relevant cases will be of interest to anyone aiming to draft website terms that will pass common law and statutory transparency and fairness tests.
Does your business have standard terms and conditions? Would it benefit from having the protections in place that Camelot did? Get in touch and I’ll help you create some fantastic terms and conditions, standard T&Cs, terms etc,
Source: Practical Law
Case: Joan Parker-Grennan v Camelot UK Lotteries Limited [2023] EWHC 800 (KB)
