| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Barry Beavis v Parking eye LTD...Judgement day | |
| Posted by: | Richard Jennings | |
| Date/Time: | 30/10/15 22:27:00 |
| It works for me too. Brian, go to www.supremecourt.uk and put Beavis in the search box. There seems to be no argument about the terms on which parking is offered to drivers: "The Claimant has displayed about 20 signs at the entrance to the car park and at frequent intervals throughout it. The Defendants do not dispute that the signs are reasonably large, prominent and legible, so that any reasonable user of the car park, including themselves, would be aware of their existence and nature and would have a fair opportunity to read them if they wished." It comes down to obscure legal arguments about whether the charge is a "penalty" (unenforceable under English common law) or is a charge that counts as "liquidated damages". One oddity of this case is that Beavis's continued occupation of the car park for nearly an extra hour caused no damage to ParkingEye's business. On the contrary, the parking charges from drivers who stay more than 2 hours are the only revenue they get for managing the car park! |