In regards to the Original Post, absolutely.
|
|
|
impark Parking Ticket
- Thread starter Ugur Dinch
- Start date
In regards to the Original Post, absolutely.
OpenGambit
Banned
the person parking.
While force majeure is also sometimes known as the "act of god" clause. However, modern contracts have usually included within the definition an action not in the control of a party that prevents them from furfilling their part of the contract.
While force majeure is also sometimes known as the "act of god" clause. However, modern contracts have usually included within the definition an action not in the control of a party that prevents them from furfilling their part of the contract.
Seems to me that it could be construed either way, especially given (as I have said) that they have people who regularly patrol their lots. In my experience, Impark is wilfully negligent in the maintenance of their ticket dispensers, perhaps because they obtain more revenue through the tickets.
OpenGambit
Banned
I don't see how it could construed the other way, perhaps you can explain.
But the way I see it is, impark is offering a unilateral contract, which is accepted by a driver upon entering the lot.
you can argue that a contract is not formed until the ticket is purchased but taht doesnt' make sense because they also argue that the violation ticket is contractually based, meaning there is a contract before you pay.
Negligence is a tort concept and not really applicable to contract law in this instance.
But the way I see it is, impark is offering a unilateral contract, which is accepted by a driver upon entering the lot.
you can argue that a contract is not formed until the ticket is purchased but taht doesnt' make sense because they also argue that the violation ticket is contractually based, meaning there is a contract before you pay.
Negligence is a tort concept and not really applicable to contract law in this instance.
Point being that if the contract is in force from the point that the vehicle enters the lot then Impark is failing in their part of the contract, by failing to produce the ticket.
The 'negligence', that I was speaking of, is 'wilful negligence', since they can expect to obtain a higher fee from the 'offence notice' than they can from the actual parking fee. In other words if they have no pressing reason for repairing their ticket dispensers, then they are failing in their portion of the contracted service. Given that they have people who constantly drive around to their lots in order to verify that the vehicles parking in them are displaying tickets, it's ridiculous that these same people don't verify the function of the ticket dispensers that they pass within mere feet of.
OpenGambit
Banned
Sorry rob but thats doesn't make sense.
Force majeure is a concept that remedies a technical breach. because of circumstances beyond a parties control. The ticket machines are well within Impark's control.
The obligation of impark is also not payment, its to give you a space to park. Force majeure would only apply in favour of impark say, if there was an earthquake destroying the lot preventing them from actually giving you a parking space.
"willful" negligence is also a bit of an oxymoron, as the term negligence essentially implies a lack of intent. What you are talking about is more along the lines of wilful misconduct or bad faith.
Again, negligence is still not a contract law concept, and inappropiate in the circumstances.
Force majeure is a concept that remedies a technical breach. because of circumstances beyond a parties control. The ticket machines are well within Impark's control.
The obligation of impark is also not payment, its to give you a space to park. Force majeure would only apply in favour of impark say, if there was an earthquake destroying the lot preventing them from actually giving you a parking space.
"willful" negligence is also a bit of an oxymoron, as the term negligence essentially implies a lack of intent. What you are talking about is more along the lines of wilful misconduct or bad faith.
Again, negligence is still not a contract law concept, and inappropiate in the circumstances.
I posit that force majeure cannot be in force if Impark has the capability of remedy, through their roving personnel, but fail to do so. Call it what you will but making little to no effort in order to remedy the situation does not absolve them. This is an ongoing issue with this company, and has been widely remarked upon.
*EDIT* I seem to not be understanding how you're applying force majeure. It seemed that you were saying that Impark was absolved by this principle, in previous posts, but in you last post (which I admittedly skimmed and then reread after replying) you seem to be agreeing that they are NOT absolved.
Colour me confused.
Last edited:
OpenGambit
Banned
When did I ever suggest at any point that impark is absolved of anything?
I am not calling it "whatever I want", I am calling it what it should be called, and if I am in the position of writing a letter to the company thats what I would be calling it.
if you don't think its helpful you don't have to use it, but don't talk to me like I am making it up.
Sorry, please read my edit. I was hoping to get it in before your response.
*Another EDIT* I read back and saw the section, that I had previously missed, where you mentioned Force Majeure but also commented on additional clauses in the contract. It was the second part that I somehow missed, so now I understand where you're coming from. I still say that they have remedy, but fail to use it, as this is a major complaint with this particular company.
As to my use of the term "wilful negligence', it is not meant as a technical nor legal term. It is an expression that I use, as I also use the term "wilful ignorance', showing the fallacy of the person or organizations actions.
*Another EDIT* I read back and saw the section, that I had previously missed, where you mentioned Force Majeure but also commented on additional clauses in the contract. It was the second part that I somehow missed, so now I understand where you're coming from. I still say that they have remedy, but fail to use it, as this is a major complaint with this particular company.
As to my use of the term "wilful negligence', it is not meant as a technical nor legal term. It is an expression that I use, as I also use the term "wilful ignorance', showing the fallacy of the person or organizations actions.
Last edited:
OpenGambit
Banned
Force majeure is a concept that says, even though a party is in technical breach of a contract, they are not subject, or should not be subject, to the penalty of that breach due to circumstances beyond their control.
While sometimes called an "act of god" clause, it applies to many situations beyond natural disasters/war/etc. and in modern contracts usually also includes within the definition circumstances not in the control of one party.
In the case of the person trying to buy a ticket, they are unable to furfil and obligation of the contract (payment) due to the actions of the other party. Many modern contracts would consider that to be not a "real" breach of contract, because the reason for your breach is circumstances beyond your control.
A similar situation would be to sell someone something internationally, not provide a bank account number or method of payment, and then sueing the non-paying party for breach.
The idea that they would leave the machines broken on purpose is not negligence - thats not harm caused by a breach of a standard of care, negligence is if the machine electrocuted you as you were buying the ticket.
Thats bad faith or willful misconduct.
While sometimes called an "act of god" clause, it applies to many situations beyond natural disasters/war/etc. and in modern contracts usually also includes within the definition circumstances not in the control of one party.
In the case of the person trying to buy a ticket, they are unable to furfil and obligation of the contract (payment) due to the actions of the other party. Many modern contracts would consider that to be not a "real" breach of contract, because the reason for your breach is circumstances beyond your control.
A similar situation would be to sell someone something internationally, not provide a bank account number or method of payment, and then sueing the non-paying party for breach.
The idea that they would leave the machines broken on purpose is not negligence - thats not harm caused by a breach of a standard of care, negligence is if the machine electrocuted you as you were buying the ticket.
Thats bad faith or willful misconduct.
Please see above. I think that I have it straight now.
Curious Rob .. What was the outcome of these tickets ? I know some people have feared reprisals and paid, others think Impark tickets make great kindle for the fire place . "What was your experience like with them".
Total of three tickets, to date. Two were cancelled by Impact, with just a phone call. The third one, at a different lot, took getting angry but was ultimately also cancelled. Fortunately I haven't had to go to the wall with them. Yet.
|
|
|
|
|