ParkingEye v Beavis at the Supreme Court: What’s Happening This Week

carandbike

I have been told by the management of four of the retailers that it was reduced from three hours when I was fighting my charge. Only hearsay, I concede.

gertysingh

CA - excellent speaker and knows his stuff.
de Waal - seems to need more practice

bazster

Fortunately they are not being marked on presentation.

I've heard nothing yet that wasn't already in front of their Lordships in writing. At the end of all this they will still be faced with the same decisions they faced at the start of it: do they go with the currently-established law on penalty clauses? Or do they uphold the bizarre new concepts set out by the CoA? Or do they ignore all that and come up with yet more novel principles of their own?

The_Slithy_Tove

They've caught onto the fact that PE want people to breach contract, as that's they way they make their money.

Shell2015

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

They've caught onto the fact that PE want people to breach contract, as that's they way they make their money.

However they don't seem to have a problem with that business model.

bazster

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

They've caught onto the fact that PE want people to breach contract, as that's they way they make their money.

Hurrah! :beer:

bazster

He's rubbed their noses in "extravagant and unconscionable" not being divorced from loss.

The_Slithy_Tove

Precis: "How can a business that claims to charge according to GPEOL (even in the wider sense of the term) be making a profit from it."

Ralph-y

perhaps we should invite him to be a forum advice member ?;)

Ralph:cool:

NWSteve

Why has it not been stated that the greatest possible loss for ParkingEye is £18 (or whatever the low figure was from that previous case)?