Parking eye won cambridge case

andy_foster

If one clause is breached or rendered void, it does not necessarily void the entire contract.

esmerobbo

bazster wrote: »

£4,000 Pannone briefs? Is that some kind of designer undergarment?

Oops "£4,000 [stop] Pannone lawyers!

There may well have been a need for some kind of undergarment at the time.

bazster

Their KADOE contract with the DVLA also requires them to observe the BPA CoP. So, by claiming penalty charges (commercially justified or not), they finish up:

- in breach of the BPA CoP
- in breach of the KADOE contract and
- without landowner authority.

Other than that they're doing fine!

HO87

esmerobbo wrote: »

Oops "£4,000 [stop] Pannone lawyers!

There may well have been a need for some kind of undergarment at the time.

That would explain it.

The four suits, so shocked at the judgment, were seen having to prop each other up as they made the very short walk from Manchester County Court back to the Pannones' offices. Strangely, nobody would walk too close to them it seems.

torontoboy45

HO87 wrote: »

That would explain it.

The four suits, so shocked at the judgment, were seen having to prop each other up as they made the very short walk from Manchester County Court back to the Pannones' offices. Strangely, nobody would walk too close to them it seems.

so they stink in more ways than one? colour me in surprised.

Dee140157

I like the mention of this case in a very recent win at POPLA on this thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4947917

I note that the Operator has made reference to a recently decided case; however, no transcript of this case has been produced, nor has it been applied to the facts in this case.