Norman Wells wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Norman Wells wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Norman Wells wrote
Harold Davis wrote

How long a period of parking are you buying for the additional
"charge", colloquially referred to as a "fine"? Is that specified on
the "contract"?

When you park, you are deemed to accept the conditions on whatever
notices are displayed prominently in the car park.

Its not that black and white with unreasonable conditions.

The conditions may be unreasonable. The only time they're unenforceable
is if they're entirely unconscionable.

That is not correct.

You'll find that it is.

No I will not.

If you bother to do even some elementary searches.

Don’t need to do any search at all to know that if the
conditions say that you can only park there if you are
wearing matching sox, that that condition is unenforceable.

You're perfectly at liberty to contract to whatever conditions you want
to.

That is not correct either. They have to be legal for starters.

Which of course they will be.

Plenty have conditions on signs that are not legal
which try to claim that you have no right to a
refund when you do have a right to a refund.

Get real.

Nothing unreal about that.

You do not contract to hand over your first born if
you don’t actually use the store as well as the carpark.

If you park there, you're accepting the terms and conditions displayed.

Nope, you are free to park there knowing that a
particular condition is not enforceable or is illegal.

You have such a poor grasp of the principles that your 'knowing' a
particular condition is not enforceable is of very dubious provenance
indeed. I wouldn't believe you for a moment.

Doesn’t matter what you believe. What
matters is what is enforceable and legal.

As for conditions being 'illegal', they won't be.

Some are.

By parking there, you enter into a legally binding contract, the terms
of which are those conditions.

That is just plain wrong.

No it isn't. It's absolutely right.

That is just plain wrong, most obviously
when one of the conditions isn't legal.

Get real.

Nothing unreal about that.

They won't be illegal.

Some are. And some are unenforceable too.

Same with any signs that claim that they have no liability at
all for anything that happens to your car in there. If part of
their building falls on your car, or one of their employees drives
into your car or kicks the **** out of it because it's where they
want to park themselves, that's their problem legally, not yours.

Of course, if it's a case of provable negligence on their part, then
they likely cannot escape their legal liabilities.

That isn't the only situation where what is stated on
the sign is not enforceable, particularly when what
is stated on the sign isn't legal, like with a statement
that goods will not ever be refunded.

I don't think I've ever seen any car park sign saying anything of the
sort.

Then you need to get out more.

If something happens to your car while it's there that is not their
fault, the condition is enforceable because you've agreed to it.

And if it is their fault, doesn’t matter what the sign says.

Any charges displayed are legally enforceable.

Wrong.

Yes they are.

Nope, not when they don’t spell out clearly
under what circumstance the charge is due.

Which they invariably do of course.

Must explain why the courts have tossed out some claims.

And that isn't true in Dave's case because
he did use the Lidl shop when he parked there.

He has to pay whatever the conditions demand of him.

Nope, not if the conditions say that the kids must be
left locked in the car in the carpark, because that is illegal.

If that's nothing because he met the displayed condition by shopping in
the Lidl store, then he has to pay nothing.

And if he ignores the condition that the kids must be left locked
in the car in the carpark, he still doesn’t have to pay anything.

That includes any charges for overstaying your welcome, parking in the
wrong way etc etc.

But not when you used the shop while parked there.

If that is in the conditions he contracted to when parking there, then
he has to pay nothing. But that's because it's in the conditions, not
because none of the conditions are enforceable.

And if the condition is that the kids must be left
locked in the car in the carpark, he still doesn’t have
to pay anything when he ignores that condition.

Your having to invent ever more ludicrous scenarios to support your
argument is a clear indicator that you don't in fact have one.

Must explain why the court have tossed out some claims.