Hypothetical question

TDA

AltheHibby wrote: »

TDA, looking at it from a 'who is in charge' point of view, we have changed drivers and the new driver takes on the old driver's role. I do see your point though.

I can see your reasoning, but that is not how the law of contract works. If you sign on the dotted line and then pass me the pen I don't suddenly become a party to the contract, and you are still bound by its terms.

Apply this to parking and the individual who parks the vehicle 'accepts' the contract, as has been pretty clearly established by the courts. If that individual then breaches the terms of said contract (e.g. by leaving site) they would be in breach of contract.

Stonker

Fergie76 wrote: »

A car cannot enter a contract, only a person, so the car returning twice within period is immaterial.

The PPC would have to prove that the same person returned and if the person does return, it might be for legitimate reasons, ie, product fault etc.

I have put my shopping in the car before now and then gone back to buy something I forgot. It seems I can't do that If I get up the road and suddenly remember I forgot something.

Umkomaas

Best way to test this out is to go and do it. Then we're dealing with reality, not hypothesis, and at which point we can get our teeth into things and deal with a substantive case.

Otherwise, I'm out - and off to help those with a for-real problem.

TDA

Umkomaas wrote: »

Best way to test this out is to go and do it. Then we're dealing with reality, not hypothesis, and at which point we can get our teeth into things and deal with a substantive case.

Otherwise, I'm out - and off to help those with a for-real problem.

Reality can be boring, hypotheticals are far more fun

Umkomaas

TDA wrote: »

Reality can be boring, hypotheticals are far more fun

But can drag on endlessly, with no satisfactory outcome.

Jeez, we've got PPCs to deal with. :rotfl:

bazster

Redx wrote: »

you would need a court case to answer this, so without a court case there is no definitive answer

Nonsense. If person A vists a car park and enters into a contract not to return within, say, four hours, there is no way on this earth that the supposed contract can be binding on person B. Person B can visit with impunity. What car person B is driving is totally irrelevant, it was person A who entered into the contract, not the car!

You really don't need a court case for this to be obvious. Even the PPC's seem to grasp this since you never hear of such a case.

bazster

Umkomaas wrote: »

Best way to test this out is to go and do it.

I've tried, they don't want to play.

Stonker

bazster wrote: »

Nonsense. If person A vists a car park and enters into a contract not to return within, say, four hours, there is no way on this earth that the supposed contract can be binding on person B. Person B can visit with impunity. What car person B is driving is totally irrelevant, it was person A who entered into the contract, not the car!

You really don't need a court case for this to be obvious. Even the PPC's seem to grasp this since you never hear of such a case.

That was much my view really. I like that