We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
General Form of Judgement or Order
Comments
-
Unlike the Beavis case*, in most car parks ParkingEye act as agent and not principal. They collect the charge for breach of contract on behalf of the landowner.
They are therefore acting as agent of an undisclosed principal and therefore according to the famous Fairlie v Fenton case can only sue if they take on the risk. The small print on the signage shows they do not.
Therefore, they have no standing to sue.
*or in fact like the Beavis case, except ParkingEye redacted critical information from the judge.Dedicated to driving up standards in parking0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards