Tweet
Re: 70 Page PROSECUTION STATEMENT - Parking Eye!!!
This is the interesting point - Penny got a ticket because she was viewed by Parking Eye as a trespasser. However, since the gym's manager gave her permission to park, she should be classed as a visitor with 'parking rights' and not trespasser, which is at odds with Parking Eye's account or the gym's - who obviously will side with Parking Eye given there is a contract between the gym and Parking Eye. The point addressed though is a point of fact and not a point of law. So, Penny's defence is that she had permission which means she was a visitor.
The first alternative is to argue a point of law of a well established estoppel doctrine. If she has permission and there were a contract, Penny will benefit an estoppel defence which essentially means that because Parking Eye are taking action against her (cause of action), she has a substantive estoppel defence to estopp the cause of action. If one were to argue there was no offer - albeit there was likely one, ie to use the car park but with a condition attached, ie must be a gym member, it's still an offer (albeit with a condition attached) - it'll just open up a hornet's nest so to speak. I just don't think it'll be a successful argument as it creates uncertainty for Private Eye so they will probably press on as a point of law. Hence the estoppel defence is lost.
The only second alternative in my view if arguing the agreement (offer and acceptance) is deemed fundamental/ essential to Penny's defence to argue there wasn't sufficient signage as per the Beavis precedent. This way you're not arguing points of law in murky waters. This is a point of fact based issue from Beavis and not Beavis' point of law.
Originally posted by mystery1
View Post
The first alternative is to argue a point of law of a well established estoppel doctrine. If she has permission and there were a contract, Penny will benefit an estoppel defence which essentially means that because Parking Eye are taking action against her (cause of action), she has a substantive estoppel defence to estopp the cause of action. If one were to argue there was no offer - albeit there was likely one, ie to use the car park but with a condition attached, ie must be a gym member, it's still an offer (albeit with a condition attached) - it'll just open up a hornet's nest so to speak. I just don't think it'll be a successful argument as it creates uncertainty for Private Eye so they will probably press on as a point of law. Hence the estoppel defence is lost.
The only second alternative in my view if arguing the agreement (offer and acceptance) is deemed fundamental/ essential to Penny's defence to argue there wasn't sufficient signage as per the Beavis precedent. This way you're not arguing points of law in murky waters. This is a point of fact based issue from Beavis and not Beavis' point of law.
Comment