What are my legal obligations?

[thecharmed01]

.... but you guys are pleased Baz got the boat moved aren't ya

Absolutely!!!

[oneofsix]

THE BOAT IS GONE

Made a susprise visit too the owner just before 11 this morning(he wasn't expecting that)

After a civil chat and confirming that he was happy for me to dispose of the boat,I rang the local tip about disposing of it in general rubbish and was given a number of a old fella(his dad) building a boat,who has just taken it away,he wanted too pay me for it but I said No your doing me a favour,he reakon I was doing him a favour as it had all the controls,motor and boat bits he needed,so we agreed he would drop of some fresh fish when he gets out fishing

Well done, both the result and your handling of the issue.

[Winston001]

Ah but in this scenario there is no consideration, so no contract.

Yezzz true that. In which case the duties lie in tort which does provide remedies.

[oldrider]

Excellent result. Might I add that you seem to be a very decent bloke. You've been treated badly by a friend and yet you haven't taken direct action without considering your neighbours and giving the guy every chance to get his property.

The world is a better place with people like you.

I second that opinion (or is that impression?) you done good! I am impressed!

[bikaholic]

A boat for disposal, You Tube, ummm, something great could have happened there (evil).

[rainman]

a $2 parking ticket

Clearly, you don't live in Auckland.

[TrentNz]

So.. no gearbox on his doorstep then

[Brett]

Again, I don't agree. It doesn't matter what the implied contract is - the CGA gives me additional rights, specifically, it gives me "guarantees".

For example:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...html#DLM312839


If I park at Wilson Parking, and upon return to my vehicle I find it is damaged (doesn't matter by whoom) can you reasonably say that the service was carried out with reasonable care and skill to prevent the damage? Chances are the Wilson car park is unmanned, and they took no measures what soever to protect my vehicle. Is that a demonstration of reasonable care and skill? Simply accepting my money does not demonstrate either care or skill in providing the service.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...html#DLM312840


So lets say I write to Wilson Parking, making it known that I expect my vehicle to be safe and free from damage while in their care. I turn up, the the machine accepts my money - they are now contracted. I experience damage to my car. It was under their care. The CGA guarantees me that the parking service will will be reasonably fit to achieve the expected result.


Like I say, there needs to be a test case. I'm not at all convinced that by simply putting up a sign saying they accept no liability for damage to your property while in their care is sufficient to contract out of the guarantee made in law.

Interesting argument.

In terms of your Wilson argument (which I don't disagree with by the way) it could be argued that Wilsons are providing a self storage facility (ie you park it, pay for the time parked, but it isn't their responsibility to also ensure security and protection necessarily, ie they could choose to stipulate this in their terms and conditions).
Also, would sending them a letter and then walking up to an automatic machine and popping in some money actually create a contract? Law 101 states that in order to create a valid contract, there are 3 essential requirements:
1) That the parties intend the agreement to be legally binding
2) That the agreement has been made via the acceptance of an offer and
3) That the obligations of the parties are supported by consideration.

If Wilson have not been able to respond to you agreeing to your letter, then this has not formed part of the acceptance (change in terms of contract) surely as the law requires some outward sign from Wilsons showing that they accept the altered terms of the contract from you? (This is assuming that it isn't covered somewhere in their Terms & Conditions).

Your argument could apply to any similar parking situation such as a mall then surely? Given that consideration doesn't need to be in cash, nor does it have to be fair in value, it could also be argued that by going to the mall and parking in their parking lot constitutes a type of contract. (Shop here at our mall and we will let you park your car here...) But I have never heard of a mall accepting responsibility for the vehicles parked there that get damaged, broken in to etc.