The chips are down for Barry Beavis – but what does it mean for the penalty rule? – Technology Law Update

Posted November 9th, 2015 in appeals, consumer protection, contracts, fees, news, parking, penalties, Supreme Court by sally

‘This week the UK Supreme Court gave a single decision on a pair of wildly different cases. They involved a chip shop owner overstaying in a retail car park and the heavily negotiated sale of a substantial Middle Eastern advertising group. (Cavendish Square v El Makdessi and ParkingEye v Beavis) Why? Because they both concerned the idea of a penalty clause – very roughly, a clause that is unenforceable because it imposes an exorbitant obligation to pay on a party that breaches a contract.’

Full story

Technology Law Update, 6th November 2015