82,927
edits
ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Truculent Mr Beavis would not pay. In ParklingEye’s terms and conditions the charge would be reduced to £50 if paid within two weeks, and for those wanting to cry-off with some justification, there was an appeals procedure as well. Naughty Mr Beavis ignored all that. He ignored reminder notices, warning letters and eventually found himself before the Designated Civil Judge of East Anglia, arguing “a point of some principle, likely to affect many other similar claims”. | Truculent Mr Beavis would not pay. In ParklingEye’s terms and conditions the charge would be reduced to £50 if paid within two weeks, and for those wanting to cry-off with some justification, there was an appeals procedure as well. Naughty Mr Beavis ignored all that. He ignored reminder notices, warning letters and eventually found himself before the Designated Civil Judge of East Anglia, arguing “a point of some principle, likely to affect many other similar claims”. | ||
We surmise Mr Beavis had a law student friend with some acumen in the idioms of the common law, but | We surmise Mr Beavis had a law student friend with some acumen in the idioms of the common law, but none in the tenets of basic common sense. | ||
In any case, rather than paying £50 and moving on, as even the most officious pedant would do, tendentious Mr Beavis asserted ParkingEye’s charge was an unenforceable [[Penalty clause|penalty]] (or, pleading in the alternative, an [[unfair contract]] under the [[Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999]]) and threw himself at the mercy of the British justice system. Bad idea. | |||
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. | ||