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

"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). But even if it were -

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

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

I have no idea what point you thought I was making]

none of the above is relevant to it

(though I don't disagree with it)




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.

Yes it is.

No it isn't. No consideration involved.

The product is parking, the consumer is "the customer" and the business is
"Lidl represented by their agent AN Other"

No consideration involved.

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

So what that doesn't stop the primary contract being a B2C contract.

But the lack of consideration does.

(FWIW Beavis tried arguing this "owned by/managed by relationship tainted
the legality of the "fine" in their original submission. It was so
roundly dissed by the Judge that they don't bother to take this point to
appeal)

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

Yes which prove whwat?

They need to police this at the lowest possible cost to themselves.
Given any particular rate of non-compliance, the parco.which can
generate the largest revenue from fines, will be able to charge Lidl
the lowest amount to operate the car park.

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

Basically its Lidl, in deciding how much they're willing to pay the
parco. who determine the level of the fines the parco is going to
need to charge those parkers who cough up, in order to make a 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.

It was

the judge threw it out

tim