ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
And lo, it came to pass that a piffling dispute between a veritable latter-day ''[[Fardell v Potts|Albertus Haddockus]]'' and the owner of some attractively located tarmac, over less than a [[monkey]], led fully seven law lords (Lords Neuberger, Mance, Clarke, Sumption, Carnwath, Toulson and Hodge) to create a [[media:ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.pdf|124 page judgment]] which forges a new path in English contract law. | And lo, it came to pass that a piffling dispute between a veritable latter-day ''[[Fardell v Potts|Albertus Haddockus]]'' and the owner of some attractively located tarmac, over less than a [[monkey]], led fully seven law lords (Lords Neuberger, Mance, Clarke, Sumption, Carnwath, Toulson and Hodge) to create a [[media:ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.pdf|124 page judgment]] which forges a new path in English contract law. | ||
Poor naughty Mr Beavis — though, actually not poor, as transparently he got what was coming to him — lost. “If this car park is unusually attractively located for shoppers and others, the evidence shows that the £85 charge has not been fixed at a particularly high level to reflect that fact. Further, as Mr Kirk QC pointed out on behalf of ParkingEye, it is equally true that the consumer gets the benefit of free parking in that unusually attractively located car park for two hours, and, save in unusual circumstances, it is entirely within his or her control whether the two-hour limit is exceeded. And if the consumer considers that the circumstances are unusual, he or she can invoke the appeals procedure.” | Poor naughty Mr Beavis — though, actually not poor, as transparently he got what was coming to him — lost. As Lords Neuberger and Sumption wryly observed in their leading judgment: | ||
:“If this car park is unusually attractively located for shoppers and others, the evidence shows that the £85 charge has not been fixed at a particularly high level to reflect that fact. Further, as Mr Kirk QC pointed out on behalf of ParkingEye, it is equally true that the consumer gets the benefit of free parking in that unusually attractively located car park for two hours, and, save in unusual circumstances, it is entirely within his or her control whether the two-hour limit is exceeded. And if the consumer considers that the circumstances are unusual, he or she can invoke the appeals procedure.” | |||
Some lessons for the players — especially for Mr Beavis: | Some lessons for the players — especially for Mr Beavis: | ||