Dispatches: Channel 4 at 8pm Tonight

salmosalaris

@TDA
Is that a win ?
I expect more of a battle than that

salmosalaris

Cornucopia wrote: »

This is the point - HHJ Maloney is saying that the promise to use the car park in the stipulated way is consideration.

Extending this to your point in #141, I can't believe that there aren't lots of situations in which company B provides services to the public as an agent of, or under licence from company A.

Indeed , but PE are claiming to be( and adjudged to be by HHJ Moloney ) Principal
very different scenario

Fergie76

But if the contract is to stay no more than two hours then can't be consideration according to the link I posted earlier:

5. An existing contractual duty will not amount to valid consideration.

If I understand that correctly???

Cornucopia

salmosalaris wrote: »

@ TDA
Please explain , re consideration
What value is there to Parking Eye in promising to leave a free car park that they do not own ? I could possibly buy this argument if the landowner was the contracting party but it is only of value to Parking Eye if the motorist stays and breaches the contract

HHJ Maloney is saying that the promise to abide by the conditions is consideration.

TBH, if this is the flaw you're looking for, it would seem to be a reasonably straightforward fix for the Landowner to pay PE 1p for every non-breaching parking stay.

salmosalaris

Cornucopia wrote: »

HHJ Maloney is saying that the promise to abide by the conditions is consideration.

TBH, if this is the flaw you're looking for, it would seem to be a reasonably straightforward fix for the Landowner to pay PE 1p for every non-breaching parking stay.

so who would be the contracting party ?
What would their loss be ?
But more importantly what of value is being offered to the contracting party by the motorist ? What goes on between PE and their client is irrelevant

Cornucopia

PE, and their loss would be 1p in the event of a breach.

They then translate that loss into £85 by the magic of commercial justification, or whatever it's called.

salmosalaris

but if PE were principal why would the landowner suffer a loss ?
other than a contrived loss
And this is still irrelevant to consideration from the motorist

Cornucopia

The Landowner already has a legitimate interest in keeping the car park well-managed.

The other option is making it pay and display with entry of licence plate at 20p for up to 2 hours. Then there is consideration, and a penalty for breach.

You can pretty much guarantee that even if the Appeal Court ruling goes substantially against PE (which is unlikely, IMHO), they will find an alternative way to make the business model pay.

TDA

salmosalaris wrote: »

@TDA
Is that a win ?
I expect more of a battle than that

It's Saturday night...

You'll get your response tomorrow. In the meantime have a read of Chappel & Co v Nestle to see that consideration need not be adequate - it can be of only notional value.

salmosalaris

Cornucopia wrote: »

PE, and their loss would be 1p in the event of a breach.

They then translate that loss into £85 by the magic of commercial justification, or whatever it's called.

so a 1p loss converts into a £ 100 loss , good luck with that !
Still irrelevant to the consideration issue