What counts as commercial justification?

The_Deep

Well, we know that Thompson got it wrong

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570258/Grandfather-wins-pay-Thomson-Holidays-landmark-legal-case-refused-refund-Spanish-trip-cancelled-wife-fell-ill.html

But in relation to parking on private land, what precisely constitutes it?

Is it a reasonable sum for failing to pay in a P&D car park?

Is it a reasonable amount for overstaying in a P&D car park?

Is it failing to display a permit in your allocated residential space.

It is justified for abusing a disabled space?

Is it using two spaces in a busy car park?

Is it buying a ticket and displaying it upside down?

Is it failing to pay in a P&D car park if the signs are unclear?

Is it failing to pay in a P&D car park when the payment machines are out of action?

Is it failing to pay for an overstay when the car park is busy and you cannot find a space immediately?

I can see a victory for PE opening another can of worms.

Captain_Krunch

I'd like to see an operator try to justify it at hospitals or a free Council owned car park.

nigelbb

The very strong legal argument that there is in fact no contract at all in a free car park has never been ruled on in a higher court.

Even if there is a contract for parking in a free car park there is a very strong argument that the contract is with the legal occupier of the land & not a 3rd party parking management company. Thus only the occupier could take the errant driver to court.

esmerobbo

It has always been commercially justified to recover costs, if Beavis is lost then the COA have decided that commercial justification in that case was satisfied.
The precedent would be set for cases that were the same as Beavis, how many car parks are rented by a PPC.

I have an interest in a couple of clubs I am looking forward to commercial justification, as I am going to put up a sign saying if our doorman have to throw you out we are going to charge you their wages for the night.

I have a feeling the PPC downfall will be from their own feeding frenzy, and when the government wake up.

spikyone

The Thomson case doesn't seem to be anything to do with commercial justification, and neither do any of the things you've mentioned. In the Thomson case, they were trying to say they'd lost money as a result of the cancellation - which they hadn't, as they'd sold the holiday to someone else.


Commercial justification relates to the "penalty" aspect of parking charges - PE were not claiming for the loss arising from Barry Beavis' parking incident, but for convoluted reasons HHJ Moloney found that PE's business would be harmed if they weren't able to charge £60 for 'transgressions'. Moloney considered that the charge was commercially justified - regardless of how such charges arise. Of course, that is patently wrong - it is not for courts to legitimise novel business models (such as paying to operate a car park that offers no other source of revenue) by permitting privately-imposed penalties.

bazster

In all the court cases to date where commercial justification has been upheld (and they have all been business-to-business cases where the contract has been negotiated between parties of equal standing) the "commercial justification" has been for a level of damages over-and-above what is directly attributable to the breach, but nonetheless there has been an initial loss arising from the breach i.e. commercial justification has never been the be-all and end-all of the matter.

It's basically been used for situations such as the injured party arguing that the breach of contract (and consequent loss of revenue) could lead them to needing to re-finance, the cost of which (although not directly attributable to the breach) can be claimed on the basis of commercial justification.

In all these cases the judgments have been careful to stress that commercial justification can never apply to liquidated damages clauses whose primary purpose is deterrence.

neil.net

If PE "win", will shops be able to start charging browsers who have a look around without purchasing anything whilst benefiting from the heat and light provided...?

HO87

neil.net wrote: »

If PE "win", will shops be able to start charging browsers who have a look around without purchasing anything whilst benefiting from the heat and light provided...?

Let your imagination soar...

That was the CA's point.

neil.net

HO87 wrote: »

Let your imagination soar...

Amazing, we could have a whole new line of industry in the UK!

HO87

neil.net wrote: »

Amazing, we could have a whole new line of industry in the UK!

Perhaps I have suffered under a terrible misapprehension for all these years? I thought that the definition of an industry was a process or system that produced items or service of value.

Where the f3ck is there value in the operation of such an "industry"?

Of course, silly me! It produces something of value solely for the "producer" and there was me thinking that, traditionally, when you pay for the "product" of an "industry" you receive something of value.

Keep in mind that when comparisons are drawn between PE's operation in certain car parks and the purchase of "fishing licences" that WE are the bl**dy fish and they are using gaffs in a culvert not baited lines! They haven't even got the good grace to knock us on the head with a priest. We're simply chucked back in to await the next "fisherman".

Let's be certain about this. This is NOT industry and anybody who uses the term about such an operation is likely to be at best mistaken, misguided or downright deluded. Mind you its sooooo easy to be deluded when you have the golden goose.

neil.net

HO87 wrote: »

Perhaps I have suffered under a terrible misapprehension for all these years? I thought that the definition of an industry was a process or system that produced items or service of value.

Where the f3ck is there value in the operation of such an "industry"?

Of course, silly me! It produces something of value solely for the "producer" and there was me thinking that, traditionally, when you pay for the "product" of an "industry" you receive something of value.

Keep in mind that when comparisons are drawn between PE's operation in certain car parks and the purchase of "fishing licences" that WE are the bl**dy fish and they are using gaffs in a culvert not baited lines! They haven't even got the good grace to knock us on the head with a priest. We're simply chucked back in to await the next "fisherman".

Let's be certain about this. This is NOT industry and anybody who uses the term about such an operation is likely to be at best mistaken, misguided or downright deluded. Mind you its sooooo easy to be deluded when you have the golden goose.

Err, I was only joking ;-)