"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"michael adams" wrote in message
If the level of the fine was known beforehand then it was open to the
appelant to make that calculation beforehand and decide whether to
risk incurring the fine or not.

The law does not work that way. If I created a contract that attempted
to extra
damages for a breach which were excessive that clause would be void in
law. The
consumer has every right to enter into the contract, knowing that the
clause is
(probably) void and challenge it should the breach occurs.

Irrelevant (see below).

Completely useless.

But even if it were -

In this case the penalty isn't excessive. Had the appelant

There is no appellant.

made thecalculation beforehand he'd have noted two things.

a) That the sum being asked is broadly comparable with parking fines and
speeding tickets imposed by local authorities and

Irrelevant. What Dave did was completely legal, he
used the store when his car was parked in the carpark.

b) If anecdotal evidence is anything to go by at least ignoring these
notices is far more common than is the case with local authority fines
which can be backed by Court Orders and bailiffs, etc. So that just simply
for expenses to be met, the level of the penalty will need to reflect this
low level of compliance

There is no penalty. Dave did what he was required to
do, used the shop when he had his car in the car park.

The idea that the consumer should say, "I think this company wants an
excessive amount of damages therefore I wont enter into the contract at
all" is recognised by the law as ridiculous.

But this isn't a consumer contract.

Correct.

This is an arrangement between three different parties; Lidl, the parco.
and the parker.

Nope.

Lidl have an asset limited parking spaces, for use by customers of their
store and nobody else.

That's not correct either.

They need to police this at the lowest possible cost to themselves.

That's not correct either on that last.

Given any particular rate of non-compliance, the parco.
which can generate the largest revenue from fines,

They don’t get to fine anyone, least of all Dave who did
what he was supposed to do, used the shop when his car
was parked in their car park.

will be able to charge Lidl the lowest amount to operate the car park.

What they charge Lidl isn't determined by how many they
catch who used the carpark without using the shop.

Basically its Lidl, in deciding how much they're willing to pay the parco.

That isn't how it works either.

who determine the level of the fines the parco

The parco doesn’t get to fine anyone, least of all Dave who
did use the shop when his car was parked in the Lidl carpark.

is going to need to charge those parkers who cough up, in order to make a
profit.

That mangles the real story utterly. There is no
requirement that the carpark produce its own profit.

With Beavis I'm rather surprised this matter hasn't already been raised.
in i.e. who his dispute is actually with, rather than nominally with.
Or maybe it has.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed.