Need assistance please
Discussion
I've not been on here before but my partner 'mr kipling' said this would be a good place to start. I've been asked to provide an essay on the following question but i need some help as to how to start this, i've been given no other information, other than it has to be 1500 words, there is no right answer but i need to be able to look at various aspects of this case and advise accordingly using contract law, tort law, and criminal law, so here is the question:
" Rahi shops in the centre of Ipswich every Saturday. Usually he parks in the multi-story carpark, but he has heard that the UCS sells car parking space at a cheaper rate on Saturdays. Last Saturday he entered the UCS car park, paid the attendant and drove in to park his car. On leaving the car park to go shopping he read the following notice:
“the UCS accepts no responsibility for damage or injury to persons or property using or parking on these premises.”
This Saturday, Rahi parked his car in the UCS car park. This time the attendant handed him a notice and asked him to read it before he parked left his car. The notice read as follows:
“During the last week there have been several thefts from cars and damage to cars from skateboarders. UCS wishes to bring it to the atterntion of all car park uses that UCS cannot accept responsibility for any damage or injury to vehicles and persons who are using the car park”
On his return from shopping, a skateboarder crashes into Rahi. He was knocked down and broke his arm. He discovers that his car radio has been stolen and his tyres painted with green paint"
Here's hoping you will be able to help x
" Rahi shops in the centre of Ipswich every Saturday. Usually he parks in the multi-story carpark, but he has heard that the UCS sells car parking space at a cheaper rate on Saturdays. Last Saturday he entered the UCS car park, paid the attendant and drove in to park his car. On leaving the car park to go shopping he read the following notice:
“the UCS accepts no responsibility for damage or injury to persons or property using or parking on these premises.”
This Saturday, Rahi parked his car in the UCS car park. This time the attendant handed him a notice and asked him to read it before he parked left his car. The notice read as follows:
“During the last week there have been several thefts from cars and damage to cars from skateboarders. UCS wishes to bring it to the atterntion of all car park uses that UCS cannot accept responsibility for any damage or injury to vehicles and persons who are using the car park”
On his return from shopping, a skateboarder crashes into Rahi. He was knocked down and broke his arm. He discovers that his car radio has been stolen and his tyres painted with green paint"
Here's hoping you will be able to help x
king law homework yourself.
Perhaps if Rahi was paying more attention in the first place, He may of noticed his radio was missing and his tyres painted green before leaving. He perhaps then may of noticed the long haired, Soap dodging hippie riding along on his wheeled floorboard and avoided the accident all-together.
Who's in the right and who's in the wrong? There's only one way to find out - FIGHT. My moneys on Rahi, It's always the quiet ones you have to look out for and Captain awesome isn't going to be upto much with a broken arm and a radio to hold onto.
Who's in the right and who's in the wrong? There's only one way to find out - FIGHT. My moneys on Rahi, It's always the quiet ones you have to look out for and Captain awesome isn't going to be upto much with a broken arm and a radio to hold onto.
You're not getting much help so far are you?
I would like to have a punt at it, but I can't find a question, merely a statement of events, which is probably why you're not getting much help.
If the question is can he claim damages from the car park, I don't think he can, he was provided with a disclaimer and by parking there he chose to accept it. He didn't have to park there.
I also don't think he'd be able to prosecute whoever damaged his motor either as it's private land and not a public thoroughfare. He could pursue private civil action if he can prove beyond reasonable doubt who did it.
Otherwise he's knackered, he chose to park there even though he was clearly warned against the potential dangers of doing so.
I would like to have a punt at it, but I can't find a question, merely a statement of events, which is probably why you're not getting much help.
If the question is can he claim damages from the car park, I don't think he can, he was provided with a disclaimer and by parking there he chose to accept it. He didn't have to park there.
I also don't think he'd be able to prosecute whoever damaged his motor either as it's private land and not a public thoroughfare. He could pursue private civil action if he can prove beyond reasonable doubt who did it.
Otherwise he's knackered, he chose to park there even though he was clearly warned against the potential dangers of doing so.
Edited by siwebster on Wednesday 21st April 15:49
Perhaps Rahi's problems are due to him parking in a rubbish multi storey car park frequented by delinquents, rather than being wafted around in a chauffered Bentley. This due to the fact that he is a handyman, and not a lawyer - this, in turn, due to the fact that he cheated on his law assignments by trying to get other people to do them for him.
Rahi should have studied harder.
Rahi should have studied harder.
Edited by Harry Flashman on Wednesday 21st April 15:54
siwebster said:
You're not getting much help so far are you?
I would like to have a punt at it, but I can't find a question, merely a statement of events, which is probably why you're not getting much help.
If the question is can he claim damages from the car park, I don't think he can, he was provided with a disclaimer and by parking there he chose to accept it. He didn't have to park there.
I also don't think he'd be able to prosecute whoever damaged his motor either as it's private land and not a public thoroughfare. He could pursue private civil action if he can prove beyond reasonable doubt who did it.
Otherwise he's knackered, he chose to park there even though he was clearly warned against the potential dangers of doing so.
I reckon that he read the disclaimer on exiting the car park, rather than entering maybe rather key here.I would like to have a punt at it, but I can't find a question, merely a statement of events, which is probably why you're not getting much help.
If the question is can he claim damages from the car park, I don't think he can, he was provided with a disclaimer and by parking there he chose to accept it. He didn't have to park there.
I also don't think he'd be able to prosecute whoever damaged his motor either as it's private land and not a public thoroughfare. He could pursue private civil action if he can prove beyond reasonable doubt who did it.
Otherwise he's knackered, he chose to park there even though he was clearly warned against the potential dangers of doing so.
Edited by siwebster on Wednesday 21st April 15:49
Harry Flashman said:
Perhaps Rahi's problems are due to him parking in a rubbish multi storey car park frequented by delinquents, rather than being wafted around in a chauffered Bentley. This to the fact that he is a handyman, and not a lawyer - this due to the fact that he cheated on his law assignments by trying to get other people to do them for him.
Rahi should have studied harder.
Further evidence of Rahi's stupidity is evident in the fact that he goes shopping every saturday. Rahi should have studied harder.
No right thinking person regularly uses actual shops. Shops are places you go occasionally when you really want to examine a product in the flesh before buying it much cheaper on the internet.
The broken arm was an accident, so no dice there.
The stealing of the radio/tyres painted green is obviously criminal, but in the absence of CCTV footage/eye witness or whatever I don't see how you would prove who had done it. It's a fairly small crime in the grand scheme of things, at least they didn't scratch paint/dent it.
On a personal note I don't ever park my car in multi story car parks, and think very carefully about where I leave even my daily hack. My car would not have been in that car park. Thumbs up to the car park for letting people know what was going on.
The stealing of the radio/tyres painted green is obviously criminal, but in the absence of CCTV footage/eye witness or whatever I don't see how you would prove who had done it. It's a fairly small crime in the grand scheme of things, at least they didn't scratch paint/dent it.
On a personal note I don't ever park my car in multi story car parks, and think very carefully about where I leave even my daily hack. My car would not have been in that car park. Thumbs up to the car park for letting people know what was going on.
Edited by varsas on Wednesday 21st April 16:26
The law can be an ass sometimes, and as I am not a lawyer and thus not qualified to offer significant legal input, I'd say the best course of action would be to hand out some VBRJ to the snotty skateboarder, and to buy some black paint to recolour his tyres. Then trip off to hospital to get the injuries sorted.
Or alternatively, where there's blame, there's a claim. Sue the punk-ass skateboarder for your injuries. Buy black paint. Don't park there again.
Not much help, am I?
Or alternatively, where there's blame, there's a claim. Sue the punk-ass skateboarder for your injuries. Buy black paint. Don't park there again.
Not much help, am I?
Edited by Whitean3 on Wednesday 21st April 16:35
Merely warning of the danger might not be deemed enough. Has the car park owner actually made any effort to rid the skateboarders? Prima facie claim against the skateboarder. Potentially a claim against the car park owner, but the facts that:
a. the person uses the car park and appears to do so with some regularity implies they know what it is like, and
b. the leaflet handed out PRIOR to the incident places the person on notice of the risk.
But like I say, there is placing someone on notice of a risk, and there is the attempt to reduce that risk. The fact that leaflets are handed out shows that the car park owner is aware of the problem. There is a contract to use the car park and there is an implied expectation of no problems in doing so. Does the leaflet exonerate that risk?
I hope that this is in the right direction, given the lack of questions provided!
a. the person uses the car park and appears to do so with some regularity implies they know what it is like, and
b. the leaflet handed out PRIOR to the incident places the person on notice of the risk.
But like I say, there is placing someone on notice of a risk, and there is the attempt to reduce that risk. The fact that leaflets are handed out shows that the car park owner is aware of the problem. There is a contract to use the car park and there is an implied expectation of no problems in doing so. Does the leaflet exonerate that risk?
I hope that this is in the right direction, given the lack of questions provided!
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff