Having fun with traffic wardens and clampers
Discussion
Greg66 said:
According to your profile you are a newbie to the motor trade and eager to learn.
When it comes to contract law, your eagerness is a genuine asset, for you have so very much to learn.
Thanks, always eager to learn. Are you experienced with contract law? Where is the flaw in the idea?When it comes to contract law, your eagerness is a genuine asset, for you have so very much to learn.
Breadvan72 said:
biggyB said:
Why the laugh? Did you read the info on the link? Lots of people having success with this. It stops a lot of attempts to clamp or ticket too. Proven effective.
Oh goody, it's been ages since we had any of this nonsense! OP, I am trying to break this to you gently, but everything that you have posted is utter claptrap. The law does not work by sorcery and magical incantations.
Try this as an antidote to the Loonyjuice that you have been imbibing.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land
TX.
biggyB said:
Greg66 said:
According to your profile you are a newbie to the motor trade and eager to learn.
When it comes to contract law, your eagerness is a genuine asset, for you have so very much to learn.
Thanks, always eager to learn. Are you experienced with contract law? Where is the flaw in the idea?When it comes to contract law, your eagerness is a genuine asset, for you have so very much to learn.
There is no contract is a good starting point.
Hey, OP, produce a copy of a judgment from a Court that upholds your crackpot theory. Oh dear, there aren't any. What a pity.
Still, why stop with parking? Why not put up a sign that says that any cozzer who stops you for speeding has to pay you a gazillion dollars. Maybe send out a notice that if if HMRC send you a tax demand they have to pay you eleventh kazillion. REMEMBER TO USE LOTS OF BIG WRITING. You could be rich, rich I tell you!
Bread of the family VAN.
Still, why stop with parking? Why not put up a sign that says that any cozzer who stops you for speeding has to pay you a gazillion dollars. Maybe send out a notice that if if HMRC send you a tax demand they have to pay you eleventh kazillion. REMEMBER TO USE LOTS OF BIG WRITING. You could be rich, rich I tell you!
Bread of the family VAN.
biggyB said:
Hahaha nice try. But you cant just walk up to someone in the street and say something like " any more steps that you take you pay me 5 pounds per step" that's silly. You have no business with that person. But in contract law you are perfectly within your rights to set your own terms for anyone trying to do business with you in the first place. Which is what the wardens or clampers would be doing by attaching anything to your car.
Therefore any further attemepts to impose your unilateral contract on me and collect this 365 pounds will be treated as unlawful harrasment and will incur a fee of 1,000 pounds.
Know your rights and the law and fight back. Or bend over and take it. The choice is yours, its a free country (just)
Yet this is exactly the format you take. It's very unlikely that anyone here (including at lease one qualified legalologist person) will think this anything but useless. And if a room full of people called me an idiot (including one with actual employment in the subject matter) I'd hope I had a better comeback than "but it's on the Internet, it must be true"Therefore any further attemepts to impose your unilateral contract on me and collect this 365 pounds will be treated as unlawful harrasment and will incur a fee of 1,000 pounds.
Know your rights and the law and fight back. Or bend over and take it. The choice is yours, its a free country (just)
biggyB said:
Greg66 said:
According to your profile you are a newbie to the motor trade and eager to learn.
When it comes to contract law, your eagerness is a genuine asset, for you have so very much to learn.
Thanks, always eager to learn. Are you experienced with contract law? Where is the flaw in the idea?When it comes to contract law, your eagerness is a genuine asset, for you have so very much to learn.
Of course, that's not half as much fun as believing the claptrap you've been drawn in by, but never mind.
biggyB said:
Breadvan72 said:
Oh goody, it's been ages since we had any of this nonsense!
OP, I am trying to break this to you gently, but everything that you have posted is utter claptrap. The law does not work by sorcery and magical incantations.
Try this as an antidote to the Loonyjuice that you have been imbibing.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land
No sorcery or magical incantations required. It just a simple example of the offer and acceptance model of contract law.OP, I am trying to break this to you gently, but everything that you have posted is utter claptrap. The law does not work by sorcery and magical incantations.
Try this as an antidote to the Loonyjuice that you have been imbibing.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land
I guess you got schooled in legal issues there BV.
Reasons why the hilarious unicorn notice has no legal effect.
(1) In the context of enforcement of statutory or regulatory parking rules, it is not possible to override such rules or prevent their enforcement by the use of any such notice. You can't opt out of some generally applicable legal provision just by saying that you do.
(2) In the private parking context, no Court would regard the person who places a private parking ticket (which is as we know a demand for payment, the enforceability of which is debatable, but that's another thread) on a car that bears the fruit loop notice as having an intention to contract on such frivolous terms, but in any event the loony with the unicorn notice on his car isn't providing any consideration to support his claimed contract.
OP, a contract requires offer, acceptance, intent to create legal relations and consideration.
Compare and contrast the notice at the car park that says "blah blah if you park here blah blah". That is an offer. The motorist accepts the offer by parking . Intent to create legal relations is easily inferred. The car park operator provides consideration by making the car park available. The motorist provides consideration by (through conduct) agreeing to the terms offered (only the enforceable and non penal ones, by the way) .
(1) In the context of enforcement of statutory or regulatory parking rules, it is not possible to override such rules or prevent their enforcement by the use of any such notice. You can't opt out of some generally applicable legal provision just by saying that you do.
(2) In the private parking context, no Court would regard the person who places a private parking ticket (which is as we know a demand for payment, the enforceability of which is debatable, but that's another thread) on a car that bears the fruit loop notice as having an intention to contract on such frivolous terms, but in any event the loony with the unicorn notice on his car isn't providing any consideration to support his claimed contract.
OP, a contract requires offer, acceptance, intent to create legal relations and consideration.
Compare and contrast the notice at the car park that says "blah blah if you park here blah blah". That is an offer. The motorist accepts the offer by parking . Intent to create legal relations is easily inferred. The car park operator provides consideration by making the car park available. The motorist provides consideration by (through conduct) agreeing to the terms offered (only the enforceable and non penal ones, by the way) .
Breadvan72 said:
Reasons why the hilarious unicorn notice has no legal effect.
(1) In the context of enforcement of statutory or regulatory parking rules, it is not possible to override such rules or prevent their enforcement by the use of any such notice. You can't opt out of some generally applicable legal provision just by saying that you do.
(2) In the private parking context, no Court would regard the person who places a private parking ticket (which is as we know a demand for payment, the enforceability of which is debatable, but that's another thread) on a car that bears the fruit loop notice as having an intention to contract on such frivolous terms, but in any event the loony with the unicorn notice on his car isn't providing any consideration to support his claimed contract.
OP, a contract requires offer, acceptance, intent to create legal relations and consideration.
Compare and contrast the notice at the car park that says "blah blah if you park here blah blah". That is an offer. The motorist accepts the offer by parking . Intent to create legal relations is easily inferred. The car park operator provides consideration by making the car park available. The motorist provides consideration by (through conduct) agreeing to the terms offered (only the enforceable and non penal ones, by the way) .
I don't believe a word of that.(1) In the context of enforcement of statutory or regulatory parking rules, it is not possible to override such rules or prevent their enforcement by the use of any such notice. You can't opt out of some generally applicable legal provision just by saying that you do.
(2) In the private parking context, no Court would regard the person who places a private parking ticket (which is as we know a demand for payment, the enforceability of which is debatable, but that's another thread) on a car that bears the fruit loop notice as having an intention to contract on such frivolous terms, but in any event the loony with the unicorn notice on his car isn't providing any consideration to support his claimed contract.
OP, a contract requires offer, acceptance, intent to create legal relations and consideration.
Compare and contrast the notice at the car park that says "blah blah if you park here blah blah". That is an offer. The motorist accepts the offer by parking . Intent to create legal relations is easily inferred. The car park operator provides consideration by making the car park available. The motorist provides consideration by (through conduct) agreeing to the terms offered (only the enforceable and non penal ones, by the way) .
There are no big words and gobbledee gook, And where is your link to a google page with Unicorns ??
Breadvan72 said:
Funk said:
Honestly BV, I wouldn't waste your time trying to correct him. You're on a hiding to nothing.
Save your fingers.
I know, but I'm snowed in, and supposed to be packing up my house to move to a new gaff. This is more fun. Save your fingers.
Breadvan72 said:
Reasons why the hilarious unicorn notice has no legal effect.
(1) In the context of enforcement of statutory or regulatory parking rules, it is not possible to override such rules or prevent their enforcement by the use of any such notice. You can't opt out of some generally applicable legal provision just by saying that you do.
(2) In the private parking context, no Court would regard the person who places a private parking ticket (which is as we know a demand for payment, the enforceability of which is debatable, but that's another thread) on a car that bears the fruit loop notice as having an intention to contract on such frivolous terms, but in any event the loony with the unicorn notice on his car isn't providing any consideration to support his claimed contract.
OP, a contract requires offer, acceptance, intent to create legal relations and consideration.
Compare and contrast the notice at the car park that says "blah blah if you park here blah blah". That is an offer. The motorist accepts the offer by parking . Intent to create legal relations is easily inferred. The car park operator provides consideration by making the car park available. The motorist provides consideration by (through conduct) agreeing to the terms offered (only the enforceable and non penal ones, by the way) .
So if you copied the parking notice exactly but altered it slightly in your favour it would be ok eg:(1) In the context of enforcement of statutory or regulatory parking rules, it is not possible to override such rules or prevent their enforcement by the use of any such notice. You can't opt out of some generally applicable legal provision just by saying that you do.
(2) In the private parking context, no Court would regard the person who places a private parking ticket (which is as we know a demand for payment, the enforceability of which is debatable, but that's another thread) on a car that bears the fruit loop notice as having an intention to contract on such frivolous terms, but in any event the loony with the unicorn notice on his car isn't providing any consideration to support his claimed contract.
OP, a contract requires offer, acceptance, intent to create legal relations and consideration.
Compare and contrast the notice at the car park that says "blah blah if you park here blah blah". That is an offer. The motorist accepts the offer by parking . Intent to create legal relations is easily inferred. The car park operator provides consideration by making the car park available. The motorist provides consideration by (through conduct) agreeing to the terms offered (only the enforceable and non penal ones, by the way) .
Compare and contrast the notice in your car that says "blah blah if you ticket me blah blah". That is an offer. The ticketer accepts the offer by ticketing the car . Intent to create legal relations is easily inferred. The car owner provides consideration by making the car available. The ticketer provides consideration by (through conduct) agreeing to the terms offered (only the enforceable and non penal ones, by the way)
TX.
There is no consideration. The motorist offers nothing of even the most nominal value in return for his supposed entitlement to be paid some daft sum of money. Add to this that the Notice is inherently frivolous and vexatious, and can't be taken seriously. It is seeking in the private parking context to prevent the car park operator from taking a step towards enforcing the parking contract. In any event, even if the car park operator decides not to put a ticket on the car, it can still find out via DVLA who is the keeper of the car and send a bill in the post, so the OP's daft plan won't work anyway.
biggyB said:
Oh ye of little faith!
Little did you know that you all have the right to propose terms to any contract. Its as simple as that. This notice sets out your terms for doing business. IF they want to accept your terms then great, send them an invoice. All legal and above board.
Or of course you can just pay them whatever they demand. The choice is yours.
So if they are in breach of the contract what woud be your genuine pre-estimate of loss? Little did you know that you all have the right to propose terms to any contract. Its as simple as that. This notice sets out your terms for doing business. IF they want to accept your terms then great, send them an invoice. All legal and above board.
Or of course you can just pay them whatever they demand. The choice is yours.
£0
Breadvan72 said:
There is no consideration. The motorist offers nothing of even the most nominal value in return for his supposed entitlement to be paid some daft sum of money. Add to this that the Notice is inherently frivolous and vexatious, and can't be taken seriously. It is seeking in the private parking context to prevent the car park operator from taking a step towards enforcing the parking contract. In any event, even if the car park operator decides not to put a ticket on the car, it can still find out via DVLA who is the keeper of the car and send a bill in the post, so the OP's daft plan won't work anyway.
Not so BV, the consideration is that you, the motorist, pays the parking fine, thereby incurring a detriment. He also includes an invoice with his remittance in accordance with the binding contract that the clamper clearly accepted.Can you explain why it is frivolous and /or vexatious to make a counter offer?
You are correct though that this is an attempt to prevent the clampers from establishing a contract, although i would prefer the word dissuade, all done in a lawful manner. They have the right to accept or decline your offer, or of course make a counter offer.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff