 | Forum
Reply | Parking at Morrisons Neath
at 20:32 20 Feb 2017
They wouldn't have to demonstrate financial loss. If you read the Supreme Court ruling...
"..The broader test the Court propounded lies in the context of commercial justification for clauses that might otherwise be regarded as penal — is there some other reason which justifies the discrepancy between the amount payable under the clause and the amount payable by way of damages at common law?
“A damages clause may properly be justified by some other consideration than the desire to recover compensation for a breach.” (para. 28).
The principle engages broader social and economic considerations, one of which is that the law will not generally make a remedy available to a party whose adverse impact on the defaulter significantly exceeds any legitimate interest of the innocent party.
The true test, the Court held at para. 32, is whether:
“the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interests of the innocent party in the enforcement of the primary obligation”.
Applying these principles to Mr Beavis’s case, they decided that whilst the penalty rule was engaged, the £85 charge was not a penalty since ParkingEye had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The company was managing car parks in the interests of the retail outlets, their customers and the public at large and had a legitimate interest in influencing the conduct of the contracting party which is not satisfied by the mere right to recover damages for breach of contract. ParkingEye could not charge a sum out of all proportion to its interests but there was no reason to suppose that £85 was out of all proportion. There was no suggestion about what an unreasonable charge might be.
Lord Mance, at para. 198 of his judgment acknowledged that the charge had a deterrent effect but concluded that it has to be and was set at a level which enables managers to recover the cost of operating the scheme. It is hence commercially justifiable." |
| Forum
Reply | Parking at Morrisons Neath
at 20:14 20 Feb 2017
The payment meters in Morrisons are solar powered - that's why they're are down all the time (Morrisons employee told me). The car park is monitiored by an ANPR camera on entry and exit. If you stay beyond 2.5 hours then you recieve a fine.
This is clearly stated before you enter the car park. If you have overstayed and received an "invoice" then it's for a breaking the terms of the contract you entered into by parking there.
You can go to the little desk to the left of the Kiosk in Morrison and complain - you will need the parkingeye letter and your Morrision receipt - but unless you really kick up a fuss, they will say you have to pay.
Best you pay the "invoice" or risk being taken to Small Claims Court.
FYI - even if the payment meters are working - it's all done via the camera as there is no-one coming around the car park checking to see if you have paid and displayed.
I am a former Safeway employee and friends who still work there confimed the above. |
| Forum
Reply | Trouble in Legoland
at 09:51 10 Oct 2013
This is a post from CC forum, This is probably what happened I would guess.
"KWest wrote:
First post here, after todays events inspired me to sign up and get an account.
At first, I was pissed off about todays news. The coverage it was getting was insane, and made us look like idiots. But I've taken a step back, and had a real think about this, and come to the following conclusion...
If Moody has been suspended due to suspicions of leaking info to the press, then Tan cannot just appoint a new person into his position and give him the job role. If he did that, Moody would have one hell of a legal case against him, regardless of the outcome of the investigation. Fact is, in todays HR world, if you appoint someone into someone else's job role before finding that person guilty of the crime, then you're f*cked.
What I can only assume, if any of these rumours about Moody being a leak are true, is that Tan looked at this situation and realised it needed to be handled delicately to avoid legal ramifications. He's probably looked at this kid who's been shadowing Moody, and thought that having him step up to fill the role whilst the investigation goes on makes the most sense. Moody had the guy working under him, so can't put forward some legal case against the club for bringing in someone to replace him, particularly as the club have clearly said it's an "acting" position.
I don't know, maybe I'm trying to make sense out of something of which there is none to make, but IF Moody has been leaking info, then I actually understand exactly why the club have made the decisions they have made recently. And please people, look at interviews with Tan: he's careful as f**k with his money, and has a strong business mind, so there's no way he'll have this kid in this position permanently." |
| Forum
Reply | Fantasy Football
at 16:55 14 Sep 2013
Code: 500781-124682 Name: EuroSwans |
| | JC55DUB
|
Site Scores| Forum Votes: | 1 | | Comment Votes: | 0 | | Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | 1 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.