1

A ticket is just an offer which customer can receive or deny. If we received or handed any
documents such as tickets then we are bounded by the term in there and by using it, it’s under the
contract law. ((What is a Contract?, 2019)). But there were no signed receipts as a proof to avoid
the fault and back side was not mentioned by the attended to aware him. So, Marcus charged full
car compensation to the Car parking company. On the other hand, he was not aware of the back
side of the contract (ticket) where it is clearly stated that Car company were not responsible for
any damage caused to the vehicle in park. Another issue is about car insurance policy, his car
insurance had been expired few days before the incident happen and he had no time to reinsure it
so the insurance company would not be reliable to pay for his loss.

According to the Law, when he received and make an offer to ticket there is a contract. He took a
ticket and gone to the office. Marcus may sue the car parking company for the lost and try to
compensate from the car parking company and could also try with the insurance company if they
can bear the loss. So, there is an exclusion clause where both parties are under a liability. Car
parking company and Marcus had a contract between them, where they both have to follow the
ruler under the contract. That’s why Marcus can’t claim the loss of his car because he is under
the liability of contract where there is stated park at own risk, they won’t be reliable for any loss
or damage. Talking about the law in an insurance company, If the insurance period is expired
they won’t claim for any damage or theft. But Every Insurance Company has its own rules. Some
of the insurance company gives time for some weeks even after the expiry date so that customers
get the time to pay for the next payment.

In the similar case study of car parking, Sydney city council where owner parked the car the
gone and unauthorized person took the car by showing false ticket. The high court said that there
is an exempting clause but they deny the application of such clause because there was clearly
written that they won’t be responsible for theft or damage. ((LIVERMORE, 2019)). As high
court won’t accept their application for the losses even though there is a breach of contract, the
court won't allow the car company to cover its breach,

In conclusion, Legal issue of car parking was determined but he didn’t read clearly so that’s his
fault which causes the breach of contract which can’t be acceptable by the high court.
Additionally, Insurance Company has a stronger reason not to claim for the theft because the
main reason is he hadn’t paid for insurance fees after its expiry.
2

In this case, the rule of exclusion clause can apply. As a Marcus can show the ticket to the Car
parking company because both are under a contract and they both are liable for the exclusion
clause of breaching this condition. The exclusion clause is effective for avoiding fraud. Marcus
keeps his car at the parking every morning for a whole day and he was not aware of the back side
of the ticket where conditions were written. In this case, more focus is provided towards the
exemption clause as the parking company does not provide any information regarding the
backside of the ticket or any warning message in front or visible to customers. This ticket
purchased by Marcus is the main cause of the exclusion clause. To fix this issue with a law

In this case study, the attendant takes an important role for the occupant to let them know about
the details for the Rules and regulation of the parking zone. Thus there is a contractual obligation
for the authority by not doing signs for proof. According to the clause, the car parking zone must
do signature to avoid the problems and also for making the occupants aware. They had aware the
customers but that is not visible to the people. Marcus wants the compensation for his car but the
car parking authority does not want to give any damage cost. In my personal opinion, the
attendant must mention the backside rules and norms of the tickets. So, there is an absence of the
exemption clause then the car parking company must pay the compensation to Marcus. And also
the signature must be maintained between the two parties for avoiding the misdeed.

Hence it can be said that the car parking committee should provide a token copy with the help of
the exemption clause so that the problems for the organization as well as the parties can’t take
place. This would be also helpful to keep proper terms between the parties. As there are no
signing criteria hence the authority should maintain the clause. This will be helpful for excluding
the liabilities and in this way the problems are also can be avoided. In this case, as no exemption
or exclusion clause is included here for that reason the car parking must pay the damage or the
compensation cost to Marcus. It can also be said that if the company is not willing to provide for
the fault then Marcus can claim for a new car to them. Hence, the Exemption clause takes an
important role in the development of the organization and also to make a healthy relationship
between the two parties.

Marcus who is an investment banker of Australia he uses to park his car in the early morning in
'Park Safe' for regular basis. He purchases the ticket for the whole day and he went for his office
He often purchases the tickets for full day basis as he knew that the attendant is present in there
all the time. After he completes his work shift again the attendant gives his car back. Marcus
knew that the Park Safe is safe for the occupant those who park the car. There a small print out
was made for the ticket provided by the Park Safe. In the back side there were several conditions
were given by the authority such as for any damage the car parking authority is not responsible
and the occupant must keep their cars at their own risk Marcus was not aware of the backside of
the ticket. One day after coming back from office he noticed that both of the backlights have
been smashed and there were several scratches and paintworks in the windows. Several items
inside the cars were also missing. When he went to the attendant for the inquiry by keeping the
car keys inside the Car after coming back he saw that his car was stolen from the parking zone.

Several issues are included in this particular case study which is there were no signed contract
between the Marcus and the Park safe authority. The conditions of the back side of the ticket
were not mentioned by the attendant for whom Marcus was not aware of these things. There
were no signed documents between the two parties for which this misdeed arise. At last, it can be
seen that the authority does not want to pay for the damage, so Marcus can claim for a new car
from the Park Safe zone.

Hence it can be concluded that in this case study Marcus has claimed for damage but the car
parking authority do not want to pay the compensation hence Marcus should claim for a new car
to the Park Safe committee. It can also be said that the exemption clause must be applied for the
car parking authority where signed receipts must be made as a proof to avoid the
misrepresentation and here as the clause is not present hence the Park Safe must provide a new
car to Marcus.
3

The contract was made between the parking owner and Marcus the moment he had given the
consideration. But he didn’t read the clauses written on the back of the ticket. Therefore, he
couldn’t know if his car got damaged, there is nothing parking owner could do. However, he
misunderstood that the parking attendant would take care of his car. However, due to Park Safe’s
negligence, his car got damaged as well as stolen. Moreover, the parking owner should have
conveyed these clauses to Marcus or Cars’ owners. In contrast to this, Marcus had expired car
insurance and therefore, not eligible for full compensation against his car damaged. The
identified issues such as the Park Safe had due care and diligence towards its customers to give
them proper protection against any damages. If clauses were printed on the ticket, then these
clauses should have communicated to the customers. But Marcus’s car insurance was expired;
therefore, he would be eligible for partly compensations. But can claim for the loss of car to park
safely. This is the legal issue that was mention in the case.

Comparing from both side, Park safe had also followed the rules that they had mention the clause
at the back side of the ticket. They thought that they are safe because they mention the statement
that the company won’t be reliable if any loss or damage happens to the car on the ticket even if
it is in the backside. If any customer such as Marcus comes to park car he is also reliable to the
contract if he accepts the ticket. It means the statement that was written in the ticket is liable to
both parties. So, in that case, Park safe have already mentioned the statement so that’s Marcus
fault if he accepts the contract without reading the clause.

Similarly, Marcus point of view is when the attendant hand over the ticket the statement should
be visible at that time so the customer like Marcus can see at the same time and can make a
decision whether to park or not. At that time he didn’t say so, that means its misleading
information. And for that company should be reliable and pay his loss. Even the company name
is Park safe but the cars are not safe. Marcus car was damaged firstly and some stuff was stolen.
After 20 minutes he lost his car, how a “Park safe” can be so much irresponsible about the theft
of the car.

In conclusion, I support Marcus point of view because Firstly, the ticket was misleading
information. Secondly, even though they stated information they talk about the damage of the
vehicle, they didn’t talk about the theft of a vehicle. It’s stolen from the Car safe so, it was not
written in the contract which means it’s a breach of contract where Park safe company should be
accountable for the compensation. Hence Marcus can claim full compensation for the value of
his vehicle from Park safe.
References

Anon, 2019. What is a Contract?. [online] Cosier.com.au. Available at:

<https://www.cosier.com.au/images/downloads/What%20is%20a%20Contract.pdf> [Accessed 4
Mar. 2019].

LIVERMORE, J., 2019. EXEMPTION CLAUSES AND IMPLIED TERMS IN CONTRACTS.

1st ed. [ebook] Tasamania: Government Primer, pp.13-14. Available at:
<https://eprints.utas.edu.au/20200/1/whole_LivermoreJohn1988_thesis.pdf> [Accessed 3 Apr.
2019].