Any help with frustration of contract defence

Guys_Dad

salmosalaris wrote: »

I'm not sure that's correct
The contract became frustrated at the point the driver ,through no fault and circumstances beyond their control, couldn't move the car and complete the contract at the time intended . At this point in time there was no loss .
Agreed evidence that removal prior to the expiry of the free period was attempted would strengthen the case

As there was no parking after 90 minutes, then my point about "no frustration" that you commented upon is irrelevant to OP. But I disagree with you if there had been a scale of charges after the 90 free minutes.

They would have been displayed and, I contend, would have been part of the "offer" in the contract that the OP would have accepted when parking. OP was not in a position to confer with PPC to vary the contract terms at time of parking.

The same as, after paying for parking at an airport for 15 days, but if you returned because of an emergency after 6 days, the 15-day contract would not have been frustrated and no refund would have been due.

salmosalaris

In that situation I would try arguing this :

where there exists a change in circumstances, after the contract was made, which is not the fault of either of the parties,each party is discharged from future obligations under the contract and neither party may sue for breach as per Bargeploe's paragraph above
That is why I suggested that proof that removal of the vehicle was attempted and impossible would strengthen the argument , along with later evidence that repairs were needed .

AKAMUM

It was a KFC car park managed by Civil Enforcement, but KFC are not the landowner (I have checked)

I get the point about the airport but if I had paid for a set time and had to leave early I wouldn't expect my money back.

Their sign states '90 minutes maximum stay. If you exceed the free parking allowance you agree to pay £100. To deter abuse these Terms apply 24 hours'

I acknowledge that when you park on private land you enter into a 'contract' but it's not like I wanted my car to break down or knew it was going to happen. I wish it was a P&D because then I could have paid the extra

Guys_Dad

AKAMUM wrote: »

I get the point about the airport but if I had paid for a set time and had to leave early I wouldn't expect my money back.

Their sign states '90 minutes maximum stay. If you exceed the free parking allowance you agree to pay £100. To deter abuse these Terms apply 24 hours'

I acknowledge that when you park on private land you enter into a 'contract' but it's not like I wanted my car to break down or knew it was going to happen. I wish it was a P&D because then I could have paid the extra

My previous post was actually to salmosalaris who is a regular contributor and was just having a disagreement (but friendly :rotfl: ) about whether or not frustration of contract would have applied in different circumstances.

In your case, there is more mileage in the frustration point.

Coupon-mad

AKAMUM wrote: »

It was a KFC car park managed by Civil Enforcement, but KFC are not the landowner (I have checked)

I get the point about the airport but if I had paid for a set time and had to leave early I wouldn't expect my money back.

Their sign states '90 minutes maximum stay. If you exceed the free parking allowance you agree to pay £100. To deter abuse these Terms apply 24 hours'

I acknowledge that when you park on private land you enter into a 'contract' but it's not like I wanted my car to break down or knew it was going to happen. I wish it was a P&D because then I could have paid the extra

Have you clicked on salmosalaris' username and sent him the pm he offered to respond to?

Salmosalaris can assist I am sure, time allowing.

AKAMUM

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Have you clicked on salmosalaris' username and sent him the pm he offered to respond to?

Salmosalaris can assist I am sure, time allowing.

Yes, in the process of exchanging details at the minute, thanks