Those supermarket parking charges.

[noseall]

That's coming from someone who constantly fails to read posts correctly.

You must lead a real dull life.

 

[joe-90]

So if a shopper helps an old lady that has fallen over and is two minutes late back then a 'fine' of £85 is reasonable?

Parking Eye made over a million pounds profit last year. That's not reasonable. They clearly have no loss whatsoever. They actually PAY the big shops to fleece their customers.

Being as the £85 doesn't represent actual loss, then it must be a fine. You'll have to change the law in parliament for cowboy companies to 'fine' people. It's not legal, and it will be overturned.

 

[noseall]

So if a shopper helps an old lady that has fallen over and is two minutes late back then a 'fine' of £85 is reasonable?

Clutching at straws now Joey. Is that the excuse you tried.

Parking Eye made over a million pounds profit last year. That's not reasonable. They clearly have no loss whatsoever. They actually PAY the big shops to fleece their customers.

Only one million? They must be a small concern. Are they not a national company?

It's not legal, and it will be overturned.

Says who? :

 

[tony1851]

Parking Eye made over a million pounds profit last year. That's not reasonable.

It's a business, so what's wrong with it making a profit??

They provide a service to the retail trade - that of helping to keep parking places free for more customers.

Sure, £85 would be unreasonable for a few minutes, or if someone was helping someone who had an accident. But to knowingly and deliberately park for far longer than 2 hours is unreasonable.

 

[joe-90]

Says whom? It's going to the high court. Only the police and councils can issue a fine. Contractual law is much different. Name another non-governmental organisation that can levy a fine on the public. (he won't).

 

[joe-90]

Parking Eye made over a million pounds profit last year. That's not reasonable.

It's a business, so what's wrong with it making a profit??

They provide a service to the retail trade - that of helping to keep parking places free for more customers.

Sure, £85 would be unreasonable for a few minutes, or if someone was helping someone who had an accident. But to knowingly and deliberately park for far longer than 2 hours is unreasonable.

So is this a breach of contract or a fine? You do understand the meaning of 'consideration' don't you? (apparently not).

 

[noseall]

Says whom? It's going to the high court.

Since when?

 

[joe-90]

Since the appeal.

 

[noseall]

Since the appeal.

Eh?

It's been to the court of appeal and the case was dismissed.

 

[joe-90]

It's going to the supreme court. It'll end up in the house of commons just like their wheel clamping con did. Same old crowd trying to fleece the public.

 

[noseall]

It's going to the Supreme Court.

No it isn't. Show me where it is (he won't).

 

[joe-90]

Haven't you learned how to use google yet?

 

[noseall]

Haven't you learned how to use google yet?

Is that your best effort? Is that your answer to "show me where this case is going to the Supreme Court ?"
(He still won't).

 

[tony1851]

So is this a breach of contract or a fine? You do understand the meaning of 'consideration' don't you? (apparently not).

It's breach of contract.

The consideration on the part of Parking Eye is that of an offer of a free parking place. The consideration on the part of the motorist is that he vacates that place before the expiry of two hours, failing which a breach of contract has occurred.

The motorist will have seen the signs dotted about the car park explaining the terms of the contract, so he may park for 3, or 4 or 5 hours, but realizes that he will have to pay for the privilage

 

[joe-90]

Does consideration need to have a monetary value?