Parking eye won cambridge case

ColliesCarer

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

Very interesting on the consideration in a free car park. Bet that gets quoted in the future.

I find this ruling very odd. Maybe the more legally minded could throw some light on it.

Surely, as a consideration must have a value that can be objectively determined, if "a promise" is the consideration then presumably it follows that "the thing" that's promised must have a value that can be objectively determined.

When the promise is "vacating a space" on a free car park the value to a "retailer landowner" could be determined e.g. the potential spend by another customer.

But what value does that promise have to a parking company or even a landowner with no retail revenue?

If it has no value then surely the promise can't be classed as consideration in an alleged contract with them?

And it could be argued that "vacating a space" has no value to the parking company, even a parking company that is paying £1000/wk to "lease" the free car park, because they neither lose anything when a car remains in a free space for longer than the free period nor gain by a different car being able to use the vacated space.

I suppose they could argue that they could potentially lose a contract if they do not maintain/improve the churn rate of vehicles, even though their systems don't actually achieve that, so that the landowner could possibly benefit from increased sales but the value of that for one vehicle overstaying would be negligible.

Any thoughts?

DCodd

bargepole wrote: »

The point is, that 'commercial justification' can be used in contracts between parties of equal standing, eg two large corporations who have individually negotiated the terms of a contract, using teams of lawyers. In such cases, even where a particular term might ordinarily be regarded as a penalty, the Courts take the view that it is not their place to interfere with freedom of contract.

We know of no cases where this principle has been applied to a dispute between a corporation and a private individual. All the indications, from recent legislation such as the UTCCR, suggest that consumers should be given greater, not less, protection. So the Judge has really stuck his neck out here in making this finding, and if it gets to the CoA it will certainly be one of the points of appeal.

That's the point I was tring to make though. Even in the case of parties of equal standing and a valid commercial justification, the CoA have ruled that no clause can be used to deter breach of contract (only to compensate loss)which is what the Judge seems to be claiming that PE should be able to do?

Bantex_2

Could someone please explain to me why a landowner or their agent cannot just have a fixed price for parking of say £100 per day, but offer the first hour free subject to terms and conditions?

Hot_Bring

Bantex wrote: »

Could someone please explain to me why a landowner or their agent cannot just have a fixed price for parking of say £100 per day, but offer the first hour free subject to terms and conditions?

They can. They will need to supply a means of payment on site though, as well as VAT invoices ...... oh, and write the contracts correctly to allow for this. Of course they don't do that because nobody in their right mind would pay £100 to park.

Stroma

Bantex wrote: »

Could someone please explain to me why a landowner or their agent cannot just have a fixed price for parking of say £100 per day, but offer the first hour free subject to terms and conditions?

There is nothing wrong with having a fixed price for parking, but if its a £100 a day, where is the facility to pay that amount? And if it is a £100 a day, why is there an offer of say £60 in letters out to the registered keeper of the vehicle?

Bantex_2

Hot_Bring wrote: »

They can. They will need to supply a means of payment on site though, as well as VAT invoices ...... oh, and write the contracts correctly to allow for this. Of course they don't do that because nobody in their right mind would pay £100 to park.

So the only thing stopping this type of contract would be a means of payment (telephone payment) and VAT invoices (post or email). Think I may start up a parking company on that basis and just make sure the signs are clear.

Umkomaas

Hot_Bring wrote: »

They can. They will need to supply a means of payment on site though, as well as VAT invoices ...... oh, and write the contracts correctly to allow for this. Of course they don't do that because nobody in their right mind would pay £100 to park.

And the retailer would have very few customers.

Seems like another helpful suggestion from the forum's very own Job's comforter - just like the suggestion to billy11 yesterday, that he sue the magnetic ticket holder manufacturer after his parking permit fell off the dashboard. :rotfl:

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Bantex wrote: »

Could someone please explain to me why a landowner or their agent cannot just have a fixed price for parking of say £100 per day, but offer the first hour free subject to terms and conditions?

In principle, that is what some of them do.

The problem is that if you do not pay anything you arguably have not entered into a contract so cannot be bound by the agreement.

There are lots of simple solutions that people do:

1) You buy parking, but get refunded. Some supermarkets do this.
2) You have barriers and give out tickets. You know you can't get out without a ticket, so it is clear that there has been an agreement, a conscious decision, a positive action, a promise to pay.

However, even if that was the case, it could still depend on how the car park was operated as to whether the £100 charge was fair and reasonable. For example, if it was a hospital car park and the hospital appointment over-ran, would it be fair and reasonable for the car park to charge you the fee through the consequences of their actions?

Consumer law says that contracts with private individuals have to be fair and reasonable, so even an obvious contract like you suggest could be tested. For example, one car park company has on its FAQ that putting the ticket on the windscreen upside down is a fair cop because that is their rules. In reality, the courts might well see that as unfair and unreasonable - such a trivial infraction that is easy to do that a charge could not be justified. In other words, companies cannot override consumer law simply by declaring "It is our land and we can do what we want with it" - there are limits. If they simply do not want the public on their land, it becomes simpler - that is trespass and is a separate issue, but if they invite the public onto their land, they are bound by consumer law.

Hot_Bring

Bantex wrote: »

So the only thing stopping this type of contract would be a means of payment (telephone payment) and VAT invoices (post or email). Think I may start up a parking company on that basis and just make sure the signs are clear.

Knock yourself out - I'm sure you'll find retailers happy that their customers would have to pay £100 to park after the first hour .... not :rotfl:

Bantex_2

Hot_Bring wrote: »

Knock yourself out - I'm sure you'll find retailers happy that their customers would have to pay £100 to park after the first hour .... not :rotfl:

Many seem happy with that situation at the moment, it was more how the deal would work that I found interesting.