The law relating to penalty clauses being unenforceable is common law.

Both good questions. The Law Society will not answer your question and will probably direct you to a solicitor.

Just to mention, there are more exemptions than s. 35. The one relating to the prevention and detection of crime and apprehension and prosecution of offenders is s. 29, for example. See Part IV of the DPA. Also, which criminal law are you suggesting they're in breach of? Which section under DPA?

Don't forget, all you are legally entitled to under contract is actual damages and consequential loss. Mere inconvenience is not usually recoverable under contract. That is more of a tort action.

Jesus...anyway, there's a difference between telling someone to lie and telling someone not to admit something. There is nothing wrong with putting the parking company to proof to prove who was driving.

Guess you'd better leave out the bit about the Parking Attendants (Wearing of Uniforms) (London) Regulations 1993 as well if you're in Bristol.

Sweet. I must have missed the bit where the judges exempted parking contractors.

Of course they have to prove their case. What's you point?

Ask them to prove who the driver was. Ask them to show how much money was lost. A penalty is not enforceable under contract law.

A lot of banks don't keep any records for more than 6 years. However, I do believe Abbey keep records on microfiche for at least ten.

There's no easy way of defining reasonable force. It's whatever is both reasonable and necessary in the circumstances as you perceived them to be. Sorry I can't be more precise but it's a (deliberately) inexact science.

"you win". Feel better?

Do we know he had not entered before? If the bailiff believed he had a right of forceful entry his mistaken belief will muddy the waters sufficiently that the CPS would not proceed with a charge.

Certainly from what has been written here which is only one side of the story I'd be looking at investigating for assault. I think the burglary issue is dead in the water as there would be no chance of proving a theft since the bailiff will argue he believed he was acting lawfully in attempting to recover the goods. Criminal damage would be iffy as well since the bailiff will again claim lack of intent or recklessness since he will have believed he was acting lawfully. The best course of action is to sue the bailiff.

Well, you could try arguing the following with them: 1. Sale of Goods Act 1979, s. 13 stipulates that goods sold by description (i.e. sold to you on the basis of your measurements as a fitted dress) must match the description. It seems the dress does not. 2. s. 14 stipulates that goods must be of a reasonable quality and free of minor defects and of a reasonable standard and finish. I'd argue this is not the case with your dress. 3. Point out to them s. 48A(3). This states that if goods do not conform to standard within 6 months of sale, they are deemed not to have conformed from delivery. Their 5 day limit is meaningless. 4. Under s. 48B the seller is required to repair, replace or refund. 5. Under common law there is a breach of contract entitling you to cancel the contract and obtain a refund. 6. The rights contained in ss. 13 - 15 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 cannot be restricted, as per s. 6 of the the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. 7. The attempted restriction of 5 days is an unfair term within the meaning of Regulation 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.