Advice please on case regarding contracting with minors

rippedoff16

KeithP wrote: »

Where does that quote in post #5 come from?

Is it just someone's interpretation of the law?

It was lifted off a UK Legal site, but appears in almost the same words on most legal interpretations of the Law. Just search "contracting with minors" and you will find similar

I guess I was hoping that someone might know for sure what the definitions of "necessaries" are or if there have been any previous court cases related

Half_way

10minutes is within the grace period, and as such no charge should have been issued.
three could be a GDPR angle here, compounded by the fact that the individual is a minor (under 18)

rippedoff16

Half_way wrote: »

10minutes is within the grace period, and as such no charge should have been issued.
three could be a GDPR angle here, compounded by the fact that the individual is a minor (under 18)

I had also forgotten to mention its a Free to Park - Car park limited to 60 Mins I think, but one still is expected to get, the ticket validated. whats crazy is that the carpark lets you out at the press of a button. Not once did the staff in the restaurant ask if he had a ticket to validate, which I think is unforgivable given that its location means that 99% of customers would go there in a car.

Anyway thats besides the point, I still think there is merit in there Minor and Contact route

Quentin

rippedoff16 wrote: »

Anyway thats besides the point, I still think there is merit in there Minor and Contact route

You are now in the debt collector/wait and see


#4 in the Newbies faq thread covers this


You ignore the debt collectors


If you get a claim then you will have the chance to see if a Judge agrees with you if you intend to defend solely on that point of 'merit'.

Snakes_Belly

Would a minor have the capacity to understand that by parking the car he was accepting the terms and conditions of the contract?

rippedoff16

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

Would a minor have the capacity to understand that by parking the car he was accepting the terms and conditions of the contract?

Thank you, exactly the basis of the defence I am proposing. That is why a minor is protected in contract law to the detriment of the other party. ( Except for contracts for necessaries) of which I am arguing that Parking is Not

He did not have capacity and as such has Voided the assumed contract

KeithP

Then your son will need some very good arguments that it is not necessary for the driver of a car to park it at some time or other.

Your son will need to convince a judge.

I would suggest that a judge could easily decide, on the balance of probabilities, that parking the car was a necessity.

timpster

I looked into this a while back for a similar situation regarding my son. I found a link to where a judge ruled against a similar defence can’t remember the exact wording or link.

However, it was along the lines of if he’s responsible enough to own/drive a car then he is responsible enough to enter into a contract regarding its use.

Car insurance is a contract and your son can have one of those, including all penalties associated with it.

If the minor wishes to drive on the roads they accept responsibility they just cannot flout everything because of age.

Needless to say, I dropped that angle and concentrated on more valid points.

Half_way

where was this Mc donalds? who's franchise is it?
was the time in the car park just 10 minutes?
dont get to tied up with contacts, go for the retailer(mc donalds franchise)

And as far as gdpr goes, when dealing with minors things are a completely different ball game, as they have additional protections.

all this can be used in a complaint to the franchisee with the aim of getting it cancelled

Snakes_Belly

Even if the parking is considered a necessary it has to be at a fair price. Parking is necessary however this is a charge for breaching a contract that he was not aware that he was entering into. You could complain to POPLA about the decision.