District Judge Shoots Parking Eye's Model Down In Flames

[DBC]

I don't know if anyone has seen Parking Prankster's blog showing a court transcript concerning Parking Eye:-

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/parkingeye-v-clarke-transcript-donated.html

 

It makes interesting reading, especially this part:-

"At the moment, as it seems to me, we have a rather bizarre situation where the present Claimants [ParkingEye] make no money apparently from those who comply with the terms of the contract (unless they receive a fee from their principals) and make their profit...from those who are in breach of their contract. Well, that cannot be right, that is nonsense it seems to me."

 

"They have not satisfied this Court that they have suffered any loss from the breach of contract. If anything, they make a profit from the breach."

 

"The Claimants here have shown that, if they are entitled to pursue it, they are pursuing a claim for their own profit, as opposed to quantifying a breach and loss which this has caused them"

 

"So in these circumstance I dismiss the claim"

 

Read and enjoy!

[f16]

Well thats Stuffed them good and proper. "Flat spin, comming in" LOL

[ericsbrother]

When was the claim issued by PE as for a while they have been using the "commercial justification" argument for applying a penalty in their contract (but also claim it isnt a penalty). Now, all of the case law on commercial justification stems from bilateral written contracts that have been signed by both parties, not a unilateral contract by way of an advertisement.

So, if this is from a claim that predates their attempt to impose a penalty in their contract I am not surprised but if it is after their change of position in their claim I would be delighted that the DJ considered the amount claimed as being for a breach rather than a penalty clause within the contract that liquidated damages do not need to need to be shown. In other words, their charge is a penalty, pure and simple and thus unlawful.

[andydd]

Interesting !

[DBC]

Even that "commercial justification" has been dismissed at POPLA.

[ericsbrother]

My reading of it was commercial justification was considered but that lies with the landowner, not PE. It was only the landowner who lost custom by the overstay and PE only made money out of it by way of penalising the customers. His analogy to estate agents being agents of landlords letting properties is a good one as he made it clear where the legal liabilites are.

So, "commercial Justifiaction" is allowed but PE cant claim it, only landlord. Gooddee!!

[esmerobbo]

Pity it was only a DJ so persuasive, and not a HCJ so being a precedent.

[ericsbrother]

Aye, but if people who are taken to court supply the transcript many DJ's will consider that evidence and be swayed by it as a method of ensuring consistency across courts. That stops people asking to be allowed to appeal.