"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.

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


How exactly has a non Lidl customer, parking in their car park
entered into any contract with Lidl or their agent ?

And what consideration or fee has he paid so as to fulfil his side
of this supposed contract ?



michael adams

....