Dispatches: Channel 4 at 8pm Tonight

Cornucopia

How would they deal with overstays?

Fergie76

Cornucopia wrote: »

How would they deal with overstays?

Charge people the appropriate amount on exit. Therefore no over stay.

salmosalaris

TDA wrote: »

I understand where you are coming from, but personally feel that if, as in Chappel & Co v Nestle, a used chocolate wrapper is considered sufficient consideration, the potential for repeat business certainly must be. It doesn't matter whether the repeat business is offered by the motorist, rather than the landlord, only that their promise not to breach the terms of the contract may provide that value.

I completely agree that the value they get from (multiple) breaches of such a contract greatly exceeds the value that they get from compliance. But that does not mean that value does not exist, even to an extremely limited extent, and that is all that is necessary for it be good consideration in the eyes of the law.

It's an interesting position where the supposed consideration in promising to leave is of less value ( arguably none ) to actually failing to leave which is of genuine value if there is a valid contract .
And when there has to be a certain amount of breaches to maintain your profit but not too many that you lose a contract the situation is pretty indefensible

TDA

salmosalaris wrote: »

It's an interesting position where the supposed consideration in promising to leave is of less value ( arguably none ) to actually failing to leave which is of genuine value if there is a valid contract .
And when there has to be a certain amount of breaches to maintain your profit but not too many that you lose a contract the situation is pretty indefensible

It is certainly a strange position.

Cornucopia

Fergie76 wrote: »

Charge people the appropriate amount on exit. Therefore no over stay.

By the appropriate amount you mean £85-100?

Meaning that they'd need much greater security to stop people leaving other than through the barriers. And they'd probably need a mechanism for people to pay such a large amount later.

I think it's potentially workable...

salmosalaris

Now , what would be the situation if HHJ had determined PE to be agent of an undisclosed Principal rather than Principal ??
I never understood why he or PE didn't introduce that option but hey I'm not a lawyer , perhaps someone who is could explain .?
Unless it's to protect the sites where a Principal is pretty obvious ?

Fergie76

No, because £85, wouldn't be the charge. it would be the hourly rate x the time you stayed. or 2 hours free, each two hours after that is £5, etc.

Cornucopia

salmosalaris wrote: »

Now , what would be the situation if HHJ had determined PE to be agent of an undisclosed Principal rather than Principal ??

Do you mean some kind of broker intermediary who would contract with both the Landowner and the PPC, so that no direct contractual relationship existed between the two?

Cornucopia

Fergie76 wrote: »

No, because £85, wouldn't be the charge. it would be the hourly rate x the time you stayed. or 2 hours free, each two hours after that is £5, etc.

In some places, that wouldn't be much of a deterrent.

salmosalaris

Cornucopia wrote: »

Do you mean some kind of broker intermediary who would contract with both the Landowner and the PPC, so that no direct contractual relationship existed between the two?

No
HHJ in his judgment said that the landowner has the right to offer parking and that in theory those landowner rights could be passed to PE , but were they ? Are they ever ?
But if PE were agent of an undisclosed Principal ,the landowner would be offering the parking but PE could enforce a contract in their name so in effect landowner losses would come into play , and the signage in Beavis would ( nearly ) support this . The trouble is in a lot of car parks it's pretty obvious who the Principal is so if PE were deemed generally to be an agent the Principal would be disclosed on many sites and PE would have no right to enforce in their name .Most Principals don't want to be embroiled in court claims for parking tickets whilst their coffers were being filled by the defendant