HX / Gladstones Hearing today!

abz1000

henrik777 said:

abz1000 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Of course yes, because isn't that what your defence and WS is all about, that it was dark and the signs were unlit and were not visible (BUT DO NOT USE THE PHRASE 'THE DRIVER ASSUMED' AND IF YOU WERE THE DRIVER THEN BE HONEST AND SAY SO):

The driver was dropping a friend of at the train station late one evening, unfamiliar with the area and train station...
 this open area directly next to the entrance of the train station tracks, looked like a car park with no lighting whatsoever which was directly next to the train tracks was the drop off or pickup point. ( Usually very small train stations don't charge for parking unless its long term or they have a drop off/ pickup point.) So the driver and the friend waited for the train to arrive and their letter states the car was parked for 21 minutes and then left. The lighting was very poor and it was very dark. Later on to find out the land was private car park of a hotel that barely even looked like it was running properly once revisited the station during daytime.

Should I address I was the driver straight away to the judge?

Witness evidence relies on being credible. No point being evasive about it. Your case appears to be, was there a contract.

Landowner contract? or you mean between me and the car park?

nosferatu1001

Between you and the ppc. 

henrik777

nosferatu1001 said:

Between you and the ppc. 

Exactly.

abz1000

nosferatu1001 said:

Between you and the ppc. 

In that case yes there is a contract

henrik777

You didn't pay ?

How is there a contract between you ?

abz1000

abz1000 said:

nosferatu1001 said:

Between you and the ppc. 

In that case yes there is a contract

19. The Claimant’s signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would

be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and

would also be considered void pursuant to Schedule 2 of the CRA. Consequently, it is the

Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was agreed by the driver.

henrik777

Also if there's a contract why argue it was dark and the signs couldn't be seen if you agree there's a contract ?

abz1000

Final Skeleton Argument Redacted.

abz1000

henrik777 said:

Also if there's a contract why argue it was dark and the signs couldn't be seen if you agree there's a contract ?

I'm sorry you've lost me. I thought I explained all my WS and Defence clearly and no one mentioned anything about this beforehand?

henrik777

abz1000 said:

Final Skeleton Argument Redacted.

Exactly. Points 1-5 are arguing no contract exists.

I'm saying that according to Beavis the contract IN THAT CASE was agreed by all and the acceptance was PARKING. This does not apply to pay and display where PAYMENT is acceptance. 

THERE CANNOT BE CONTRACTUAL PENALTIES unless there is a contract.