A Summary of the Beavis Case

hoohoo

Northlakes wrote: »

I can understand how in the Beavis case there is no immediate loss to either party but that the CofA judged that there was a commercial justification by PE in the claim.

However what I can't get my head round is the fact that unusually PE paid the landowner (unlike most of its operations). There was also the fact that their was reduction in allowed time of parking from 3 hours to 2 hours. Did the Beavis defence enquire or allege the landowner and operator jointly conspired to encourage breaches for joint gain to the detriment of a third party?

The reduction in time only came to light after the hearing, and so was never presented as evidence to the judges.

TDA

bazster wrote: »

"On the ground", as it were, policy considerations certainly are in play. That's not to say the CoA judges were correct to take those considerations into account: it's not their job to descry, uphold or support the policies of a business, their job is to apply the law to the case in front of them.

Regardless of whether the decision was right or wrong, judges certainly do have to take policy factors into account, though they tend to do so more in areas such as tort than in contract. Still, it is not unheard of in the law of contract. Just look at the approach the courts have taken in the past towards contracts perceived to be against public policy.

There is a distinction between upholding the policies of a business, and seeing the particular business model of a business as necessary to achieve public policy aims. Supporting the policies of the business was incidental to achieving the public policy aims.

bazster

It's a case about parking on private property, there are no public policy considerations.

The judges should've kept their noses out of the business of ParkingEye, the landowner and indeed Mr. Beavis and stuck to the contractual issues.

And don't tell me it's in the public's interest that there is a certain turnover of spaces. It would also be in the public's interest for the shops on the site to halve their prices, but is it that business of the courts or a matter of public policy? If the "public" don't like the prices they can go elsewhere, just as they can do if they don't like the parking arrangements.

ColliesCarer

Odd isn't if Parking Eye's business model is so necessary to achieving public policy aims why prior to POFA and the plague of ANPR cameras, I have no recollection of parking Armageddon being an issue.

But in the 2 1/2 years since this was introduced almost all the supermarkets who introduced them have reported significantly reduced profits. Now this apparent negative correlation may not be causal, even if only partially, and could be pure co-incidence but ....

Northlakes

Interestingly retailers on this site say there is plentiful car parking! I wonder why?

bazster

Northlakes wrote: »

Interestingly retailers on this site say there is plentiful car parking! I wonder why?

With a corresponding paucity of customers no doubt. Market forces at work, public policy nowhere in sight.

The biggest problem here is the remoteness of the landowner from those market forces. The retailers will feel the effects immediately, but the landowner will not feel them until contract renewal time for the retailers - and even then the factors mitigating against the retailers upping sticks and setting up elsewhere are formidable.

Umkomaas

And I'm sure the notoriety of The Riverside will have been enhanced by the Beavis case, with potential parkers (customers) 'safe' in the knowledge that if they accidentally miss the 2-hour deadline, the PE penalty will be enforceable, as things stand presently. Nah, we'll go shop elsewhere, The Riverside's not worth the risk.

Sooner or later PE will find they are paying more to fish than they are able to catch. Then what? Of course, 1.5 hours maximum stay!

ColliesCarer

Exactly Umkomaas

In the case, consideration seems to have been given to what would happen if PE failed to "manage" the car park i.e. the possible loss of their contract.

But it appears the converse wasn't taken into account i.e.
if everyone complied and no charges at all could be issued PE would look to reduce the free time but ultimately they would end up walking away having driven the retailers out of business

fisherjim

ColliesCarer wrote: »

But in the 2 1/2 years since this was introduced almost all the supermarkets who introduced them have reported significantly reduced profits. Now this apparent negative correlation may not be causal, even if only partially, and could be pure co-incidence but ....

Although Aldi & Lidl who have very aggressive parking policies have shown an unprecedented upturn in trade!

Northlakes

Unfortunately the retailers are ones left out of this equation, however they could be said to be victims of their own greed, Tesco is now desperately trying to rid itself of duff leases and premises. Internet sales growth leading to retail site overcapacity is now the order of the day.

What you have now with the Chelmsford site (and other sites with multiple retailers) is a landowner in collusion with PPC's trying to maximise income from the motorist as they now know they can't get any extra from the retailer in rental income.

The CofA was in my view totally wrong in seeing only a one sided picture. As Bazster says they should have concerned themselves solely with contract law leaving public interest matters to people elected to do so. If PE and others are unhappy, they then need to convince the politicians and amend the law as necessary.