tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post1647801036960560380..comments2024-02-21T09:25:42.645-08:00Comments on Parking Prankster: Supreme Court confirm Beavis Appeal dateParking Pranksterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15270922602703929291noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-70845762765134018252015-06-29T23:56:14.715-07:002015-06-29T23:56:14.715-07:00Hearing the cases together is a bit concerning. T...Hearing the cases together is a bit concerning. Their Lordships seem to get a bit "yes, yes, yes, but what we think SHOULD be allowed..." when it comes to businesses - see http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1997/2073.html for an example.Colin MacDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01681687023913022670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-91636664839296902532015-06-29T08:06:51.750-07:002015-06-29T08:06:51.750-07:00That's a right old David and Goliath scenario....That's a right old David and Goliath scenario.<br />The Cavendish case is a whole load more complex being contractually related losses negiotiated and agreed prior to the contract being signed. Also it's a commercial case and as such bears little relevence to Beavis being a lowly chippy owner.<br />The considerations are vastly different where there has been no real negotiation to a commercially drawn up contract by top company laywers to the Beavis case of a member of the public being ripped off on a supposed contractual basis.<br /><br />Neverthless the judges will be well aware of all that and I'm sure should be able to see this from the point of view of it being a penalty amount with the intention of preventing an overstay. Reading the Cavendish case there's much reference to that, and that despite it being drawn up as a commercially justified amount, it still wears the clothes of a penalty.Fractious Tarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18121510469285069560noreply@blogger.com