"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Norman Wells wrote
Rod Speed wrote


Very difficult to prove that you didn’t use the shop when you used the
carpark.

That depends on what exactly the displayed conditions were.

Nope.

It does where the condition is:

"to prove that you were a customer you must give you details to the cashier
as you pay for you goods..."


They determine what has to be proved, and where the burden of proof lies.

Nope. The basic law on proof still applys.

the law is not as ass Rod.

Provided that the conditions are sensible (which ISTM in this case, they
are), the law will not impose alternative methods of, in this case,
determining who is and who is not a customer, than that which is in the
contract.

If you don't comply with the required method, you don't have the argument -
but they could have determined this a different way


They still have to prove that you didn’t comply with the conditions.

agree

in this case "show that you didn't give your details to the cashier" - I
accepts that in some cases it will be possible for the customer to say, "but
I did, the cashier must have recorded it incorrectly", but the OP has
already told us that this is not the case here.

As above, the required level of proof is not to force the company to show
that the person was not a customer, by some other means.

tim