The age issue

ppc_guy

Hi everyone,

some of you may remember me from a while back trying to have civil conversation and discussion on here about how to improve my industry. Clearly a lot of people said "stop" which was to be expected.
Whilst driving around the other day in a half daze i thought about the contractual part of our business. The law is you have to be 18 to enter into a legal contract. This would mean any 17 year old drivers would be exempt?

PLEASE do not turn this into a slagging me off thread

peter_the_piper

A useful question, I would like to think so but don't feel that it would carry any weight with most ppc's if an appeal was drafted in such a way(no more than any appeal does)

LittleVoice

Minors can enter into legally enforceable contracts so the first part of your train of thought hits some difficulty.

SodG24

Are you sure about the 18 years old bit ? I only ask because how do X-Factor enforce their contract on the 16 and 17 year olds in their show otherwise ?

trisontana

SodG24 wrote: »

Are you sure about the 18 years old bit ? I only ask because how do X-Factor enforce their contract on the 16 and 17 year olds in their show otherwise ?

I imagine their parents or guardians have to sign on their behalf.

ppc_guy

http://www.gillhams.com/dictionary/444.cfm

The general law states that contracts entered into by children that are for 'necessaries' are binding on children, as are those for apprenticeship, employment, education and service where they are rightly said to be for the benefit of the child. Contracts for necessaries are for the supply of food, medicines, accommodation, clothing, amongst other things but generally excludes conveniences, and products and services for comfort or pleasure. Commercial or 'trading' contracts are excluded. These latter contracts are voidable at the option of the minor, and whether the minor may avoid the contract depends on the nature of the contract.

So in theory the minor can park and agree to any contract but if ticketed void the contract if the ticket was issued by a ppc legally, fairly and all the other requim were met.

trisontana

ppc_guy wrote: »

http://www.gillhams.com/dictionary/444.cfm


So in theory the minor can park and agree to any contract but if ticketed void the contract if the ticket was issued by a ppc legally, fairly and all the other requim were met.

Except that ticket can only ask for the actual material loss suffered by the landowner, and not some made up penalty.

When you say "agree", do you mean those stupid signs that state that if you drive past them you automatically agree to their T&Cs. If so, I refer you to the recent court case where Excel lost a case because of those conditions.

ppc_guy

trisontana wrote: »

Except that ticket can only ask for the actual material loss suffered by the landowner, and not some made up penalty.

When you say "agree", do you mean those stupid signs that state that if you drive past them you automatically agree to their T&Cs. If so, I refer you to the recent court case where Excel lost a case because of those conditions.

As i said if all requim were met.

And by the court case i assume you mean the case where excel lost not on the simple basis of the sign but the fact the sign was badly layedd out in respect of word size?

trisontana

ppc_guy wrote: »

As i said if all requim were met.

And by the court case i assume you mean the case where excel lost not on the simple basis of the sign but the fact the sign was badly layedd out in respect of word size?

As are most signs in most PPC run car-parks.

You did not answer my question about the penalty part of a PPC ticket.

ppc_guy

As i said if all requim were met

This is for ALL Requim including the amount.

trisontana

ppc_guy wrote: »

This is for ALL Requim including the amount.

So are you saying that the PPC can only claim the actual loss suffered by the landowner and not some made-up penalty?