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 QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
Advice please on case regarding contracting with minors
Comments
-
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
Not sure of the angle with GDPR ? and have already contacted McDonalds who say they have no responsibility and to direct my questions to the Parking Company0 -
Did you contact McDs or the franchisee oft that particular establishment?0
-
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.
I agree that having a car comes with responsibilities, however along the way through schooling etc they are not taught how to be commercially aware, I would argue that he was commercially immature and incapable of fully understanding that by not validating his ticket in a free to park car park after buying his dinner in McDonalds that he had breached a contract ( twice) contracts that were to cost him £200. quite clearly he has learned the hard way, but what a sad society we live in where a youngster discovering the freedoms of driving gets penalised by these bloodsucking leeches.
I guess I am so passionate about this because Its just so wrong. maybe I should just remove the emotion, but I cant.0 -
-
rippedoff16 wrote: »Yes I did. are you suggesting that this normally gets a result ?
Which did you do?
I asked if you contacted McDonalds or the franchisee of the particular restaurant.
I'm agreeing with Half_way... go for the retailer - the franchisee.0 -
Onerous terms are not enforceable against a minor. A contract for necessities may be enforceable but it must not contain onerous terms and must be fair and reasonably priced.
Bargepole has posted on a similar case on another site. Bargepole is a regular poster on this site. This is what Bargepole says about a similar case (not recent).
'As a minor, she does not have the legal capacity to enter into a contract, other than for essentials such as food etc. (Family Law Reform Act 1969).
Therefore, she was not bound by any purported contract created by Parking Eye's signage, and owes them nothing.'
I agree with the other posters that it is a lot easier to get the fast food outlet to cancel the charge.
Nolite te bast--des carborundorum.0 -
rippedoff16 wrote: »I agree that having a car comes with responsibilities, however along the way through schooling etc they are not taught how to be commercially aware, I would argue that he was commercially immature and incapable of fully understanding that by not validating his ticket in a free to park car park after buying his dinner in McDonalds that he had breached a contract ( twice) contracts that were to cost him £200. quite clearly he has learned the hard way, but what a sad society we live in where a youngster discovering the freedoms of driving gets penalised by these bloodsucking leeches.
I guess I am so passionate about this because Its just so wrong. maybe I should just remove the emotion, but I cant.
I agree with your sentiments hence why I dug deeper with my own son and focused on law rather than sentiment. Just a quick search today and I find this, which is along the lines of my decision to change tact about 2 years ago.
Necessaries. A minor is bound to pay for necessaries supplied to him under a contract. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 s.3, re-enacting the Act of 1893, provides:
"... where necessaries are sold and delivered to an infant (or minor)... he must pay a reasonable price therefor.
'Necessaries' in this section means goods suitable to the condition of life of such infant (or minor)... and to his actual requirements at the time of sale and delivery."
"Necessaries" are those things without which a person cannot reasonably exist and include food, clothing, lodging, education or training in a trade and essential services. The "condition of life" of the minor means his social status and his wealth. What is regarded as necessary for the minor residing in a stately home may be unnecessary for the resident of a council flat. Whatever the minor's status, the goods must be suitable to his actual requirements-if he already has enough fancy waistcoats, more cannot be necessary: Nash v. Inman [1908] 2 KB 1, CA.
Therefore if it's normal condition of life for and a necessaries for a seventeen year old to have a car, it can be argued on the above it's normal condition of life for and a necessaries to pay its costs of running and ownership. Hence the contract is valid for a 17 year old car owner/driver due to the condition of life.
Like I said I did find a judgment along those lines so I change tack and went with the normal points in the newbies section to get it quashed.
Emotion doesn't help in court only the law and Id rather argue the case a 17 year old car driver could enter a parking contract than argue against.0 -
There are not many cases relating to contracts and minors and most are outdated. The contract in this case is created by signage.
Nolite te bast--des carborundorum.0 -
-
Snakes_Belly wrote: »There are not many cases relating to contracts and minors and most are outdated. The contract in this case is created by signage.
Agreed, and stating the signage was inadequate or the contract unfair works for all ages.
However, if the signage by some miracle was in this case able to form a contract then being 17 will not absolve him. When this happened to my son I too thought I had the golden bullet of age to quash it should it ever go to court.
Reading up on it proved otherwise, IF the parking contract was valid then age alone wasn’t going to help.
If you own or drive a car and you want to park it then it becomes a necessity.
If the contract is unfair then age doesn’t matter.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards