FE-1 Made Simple

Case Summary: Hurst v. Picture Theatres Ltd

Listen Later

Court: King’s Bench

Citation: [1915] 1 KB 1

Facts

In Hurst v. Picture Theatres Ltd, Mr. Hurst purchased a ticket to watch a film at a cinema owned by Picture Theatres Ltd. Partway through the film, an employee of the theatre accused Mr. Hurst of entering without a valid ticket, even though he had paid for one, and subsequently ejected him from the premises. Mr. Hurst sued for trespass to the person (for being forcibly removed) and breach of contract (for the premature revocation of his license to be on the property).

Legal Issues

  1. Revocation of License: Whether the cinema, having sold Mr. Hurst a ticket, had the right to revoke his license to remain on the premises without just cause.
  2. Trespass to Person: Whether forcibly ejecting Mr. Hurst from the cinema amounted to trespass to the person if he had a valid license to be there.

    3. Legal Principles Applied

    1. License Coupled with Contract: In cases where a person has purchased a ticket, they acquire a license coupled with a contract. This allows the individual to occupy the premises for the specified purpose (in this case, watching the film), and the license cannot be arbitrarily revoked by the licensor during the contract’s duration unless there is a legitimate reason, such as breach of conditions or disorderly conduct.
    2. Right to Enjoy the Service Contracted: Under contract law, Mr. Hurst had the right to remain on the premises as long as he adhered to the terms, which included holding a valid ticket and behaving appropriately.

      3. Decision

      The court found in favor of Mr. Hurst, ruling that he was lawfully on the premises under a valid license provided by his purchase of the ticket. The revocation of his license was unjustified, and the cinema had wrongfully ejected him.

      1. Unjustified Revocation of License: The court held that, by purchasing the ticket, Mr. Hurst had obtained a contractual right to be on the premises and view the film. Since there was no breach of contract or misconduct on Mr. Hurst’s part, the theatre could not arbitrarily revoke his license to be there.
      2. Trespass to the Person: The court ruled that forcibly ejecting Mr. Hurst without justification constituted trespass to the person, entitling him to damages.

        3. Key Points from the Judgment

        1. Protection for Ticket Holders: The judgment reinforced that a ticket represents not just a revocable license, but a license with contractual rights, which cannot be withdrawn without proper cause.
        2. Legal Distinction Between Mere Licenses and Licenses Coupled with Contracts: The case distinguished between general licenses (which can often be revoked at will) and licenses that arise from contracts (which grant the licensee additional protections as long as they adhere to the contract terms).

          3. Significance

          Hurst v. Picture Theatres Ltd set an important precedent regarding the treatment of licenses coupled with contracts. It established that a license granted through a paid contract (like a cinema ticket) cannot be revoked without just cause, providing consumers with security in their contractual rights to enjoy purchased services. This principle has been applied in similar cases where individuals are removed from premises despite fulfilling all contractual conditions, thereby protecting consumers against arbitrary actions by service providers.

          ...more
          View all episodesView all episodes
          Download on the App Store
          FE-1 Made SimpleBy Akintunde Idowu