contract law

[ym2bns]

LAW OF CONTRACT SEEN EXAMINATION SCENARIO 2007/08



City Parking Ltd ("Parking Ltd") owns a multi-storey car park. Entrance to the car park is via an automatic barrier. Alongside the barrier is a ticket machine which dispenses a ticket to each driver giving the time of arrival. Taking a ticket permits entry by causing the barrier to rise. Alongside the barrier is a large notice setting out the company's charges and stating:

MOTORISTS SHOULD TAKE A TICKET FROM THE MACHINE AND PAY AT THE EXIT.

TAKING A TICKET BINDS THE USER TO THE COMPANY'S TERMS AND CONDITIONS WHICH ARE DISPLAYED INSIDE THE CAR PARK.

Inside the car park a notice exists on the ground floor that states:

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC USE THE CAR PARK ENTIRELY AT THEIR OWN RISK IN RESPECT OF THEIR PERSONS AND PROPERTY

[kujawski]

and the question is?

[Twenty20]

The trick of this site is that you have to ask a question to start with then, hopefully, you get some answers.

It kind of ruins the whole idea if people don't actually ask a question but just type in statements taken randomly off signs in car parks.

Each to their own though.

[MrsT]

As I am a hyper-intellegent pan dimensional super being I think I can extrapolate the question from the otherwise incoherant ramblings. I think what is being asked here is: Why can they absolve themselves of responsibility for the car etc, ie can they have it both ways?

The answer is yes they can because the notice about "own risk" etc is no doubt an extract from the main terms and conditions which the punter agrees to by entering and buying a ticket. There is no doubt a whole legal diatribe in place which in essence always says the same thing:
"anything that happens is not our fault"

[kujawski]

wowzzerrrz

shmowzzerzzz

[Gmcd01]

If you can't even answer a seen examination question, how do you expect to survive in a legal firm?
Any student with half a brain and one ear would know the case this relates to!
Damned if I'm saying it though, pick up your books for once.

[fredpuli47]

The letters NCP come to mind! And ask yourself whether you think the terms are unreasonable or reasonable.....There, that's a start (think whether you can notice anything else that has been brought to your attention).

[Buenchico]

Read the relevant legislation, then look up the case law which pertains to it:
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegT ype=all+primary&PageNumber=50&NavFrom=2&parent ActiveTextDocId=224526&ActiveTextDocId=224526& filesize=137496

Chris

[jonarizmendi]

Look up the case of Thornton -v- Shoe Lane Parking Ltd., it's exactly the same. The terms must be displayed before taking a ticket as a person cannot accept a contract without knowing the terms. They should be invalid.