Private Parking Charge Retailer Closed Down

John464

Parking_nightmare said:

 - in contract law there has to be what us referred to as “consideration”. In this context the consideration is parking a vehicle on the land in return for the ability to enter the retail premises. 

do you mean  parking a vehicle on the land for the ability to enter the retail premises. 
not 'in return for'

Parking_nightmare

John464 said:

Parking_nightmare said:

 - in contract law there has to be what us referred to as “consideration”. In this context the consideration is parking a vehicle on the land in return for the ability to enter the retail premises. 

do you mean  parking a vehicle on the land for the ability to enter the retail premises. 
not 'in return for'

Yes that what I meant 

Coupon-mad

Same thing.  Don't let John464 take your thread off on a wild goose chase tangent, as he has actively done to ruin other people's threads recently.  Make your own mind up but just don't reply to posts if they are unhelpful!

Parking_nightmare please read the NEWBIES thread to educate yourself about the POFA and other acronyms as you will not be in a good position if you are asking us about basic acronyms (that affect your defence arguments) at such a late stage.

John464

Coupon-mad said:

Same thing.  Don't let John464 take your thread off on a wild goose chase tangent, as he has actively done to ruin other people's threads recently.  Make your own mind up but just don't reply to posts if they are unhelpful!

Do you really think 
 parking a vehicle on the land for the ability to enter the retail premises. 
is the 'same thing' as
 parking a vehicle on the land in return for the ability to enter the retail premises. 

Or do you just have to disagree with me for the sake of it?

KeithP

Do you really think 
 parking a vehicle on the land for the ability to enter the retail premises. 
is the 'same thing' as
 parking a vehicle on the land in return for the ability to enter the retail premises. 

Or do you just have to disagree with me for the sake of it?

It is my opinion that both those statements tell me that the vehicle was parked in order to visit the retail premises.

Presumably you are suggesting only one of those statements means that.
If so, please tell us what, in your opinion, the other statement means?

And indeed, does it matter?

John464

The OP said;
 in contract law there has to be what us referred to as “consideration”. In this context the consideration is parking a vehicle on the land in return for the ability to enter the retail premises

Basic contract law, Lesson 1
What consideration means is that in return for your payment to the parking company they have to give you something (called the 'consideration') of value in return
This is your parking the vehicle to enter the retail premises.
if you say 'parking a vehicle on the land in return for the ability to enter the retail premises' that changes the meaning.  It implies you are giving the landowner something of value by parking on their land. - in return for their giving you something of value by the right to enter the retail premises.

The OP understood this straightaway and thanked me for it.
Coupon-mad and KeithP don't appear to have understood it.
Coupon-mad has even become rude and abusive to me for pointing it out.

Sadly this forum seems to have become dominated by a small clique of high volume posters, who have to agree with each other right or wrong, and attack anyone who tries to help by pointing out a mistake.
They call their own view the forum view, as though they are the forum!   
As though their own view is the last word and nobody else has the right to post an opinion that differs with theirs.

John464

KeithP said:

And indeed, does it matter?

If it doesn't matter why are Coupon-Mad and yourself challenging it?
Of course detail matters
Because cases are won or lost on the detail
And because getting the details right lets the parking company know you on the ball and a force to be reckoned with.

Coupon-mad

Parking_nightmare said:

John464 said:

Parking_nightmare said:

 - in contract law there has to be what us referred to as “consideration”. In this context the consideration is parking a vehicle on the land in return for the ability to enter the retail premises. 

do you mean  parking a vehicle on the land for the ability to enter the retail premises. 
not 'in return for'

Yes that what I meant 

Don't let John464 take your thread off on a wild goose chase tangent, as he has actively done to ruin other people's threads recently. 

Make your own mind up but just don't reply to posts if they are unhelpful!

The above is advice for the OP and I see no 'abusive' posting except by the person openly trying to ruin this thread.

John464

Coupon-mad said:

Parking_nightmare said:

John464 said:

Parking_nightmare said:

 - in contract law there has to be what us referred to as “consideration”. In this context the consideration is parking a vehicle on the land in return for the ability to enter the retail premises. 

do you mean  parking a vehicle on the land for the ability to enter the retail premises. 
not 'in return for'

Yes that what I meant 

Don't let John464 take your thread off on a wild goose chase tangent, as he has actively done to ruin other people's threads recently. 

Make your own mind up but just don't reply to posts if they are unhelpful!

The above is advice for the OP and I see no 'abusive' posting except by the person openly trying to ruin this thread.

You are doing it again
I made a perfectly valid point and if one of your clique had posted that I believe you would have thanked them for it