Having fun with traffic wardens and clampers

[pinchmeimdreamin]

you are really arguing with BV about contract law

[anonymous-user]

biggyB said:

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.

Stop being a fking idiot.

Or an attention we.

Maybe both. I don't much care either way.

[anonymous-user]

biggyB said:

Greg66 said:

Yes thanks.

There is no contract is a good starting point.

I think you might be missing the point. This sign is a counter offer to contract. If they go ahead and attach something to your car then a contract is formed.

No, I'm not (you 'tard).

There is no contract. Ever. Full stop. No offer from you, no acceptance from the person placing something on your car. That is it.

Found this little gem in your posting history:

biggyB said:

If you die intestate, your estate goes through the probate process, where lawyers and solicitors can milk off from 10 to 20% of the total. Sometimes MUCH more.
If you make a will, when you die your estate STILL goes through probate, where the scummy lawyers still get to claw out as much as they can from your pie, if your relatives use one of course.
If one of your relatives does all the paperwork and goes through the process then obviously the lawyers don't get a cut.

The way around all of this crap is to create a Living Trust. Very easy to do and can be done without lawyers via a notary.
There is no probate process at all for an estate that is within a Living Trust. The assets in the trust are handed over immediately by the trustee according to the trust indenture which is the law of the trust, written by you when you set it up. Totally bypasses the probate process and the scummy lawyers who should be avoided is at all possible.

Full disclosure: I hate lawyers. I personally went through the probate process for 2 family members that passed away, one with a will and one intestate. The one with the will was more dragged out and difficult than the one that didn't leave a will.

Its all a scam in my opinion to milk peoples assets when they die. Get around it completely with a Living Trust. Books available on the subject everywhere.

Woe to you lawyers!

I missed the bits in that where you explain (a) what the person setting up the trust is going to live on once they've put all their assets into a trust; (b) the tax implications of this exercise; (c) who pays the trustee.

Oh, and when you die intestate your estate doesn't go through probate. Probate is a process by which a person' swill is proved.

[biggyB]

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.

You would not be overriding any rules, you would be sticking to the rules. The rules of contract law and commerce. No opting out of anything is suggested.

Breadvan72 said:

(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.

The motorist provides consideration by paying the ticket. He also sends his invoice along with it.
I'm relieved that you think these demands for payment are dubious or debatable. I was beginning to think i was posting on a traffic wardens forum or a conservative MP's forum!

Breadvan72 said:

OP, a contract requires offer, acceptance, intent to create legal relations and consideration.

Every point you rightfully made here is covered. Offer (tick) Acceptance (tick) Intent (tick) Consideration (tick)

Breadvan72 said:

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 respectfully disagree. The motorist makes a counter offer by parking with his sign in the window. As you know a counter offer removes the original offer from the table. The clamper either accepts this counter offer by clamping the car or doesnt by walking away.

Thanks for th intelligent reply BV

[pinchmeimdreamin]

biggyB said:

Thanks for the intelligent reply BV

But I will ignore everything you said.

EFA

[Kinky]

Oh look .... there's a leprechaun