Impark Sucks

Sat Jun 18, 2005 2:49 am

Imperial Parking has got to be the axis of evil

Feel free to discuss :x

Sat Jun 18, 2005 8:05 am

I was wondering if we were going to be starting up one of these threads again.

Might as well try and get the publicity out there and give them even more negative publicity.

You just gotta love how the back of the ticket absolves them of any liability yet they try and use the liability issue with the tailgate.

So does that mean they actually are liable and if anything happens to my car in their lot I can sue them? Afterall in one hand they are saying they aren't liable but on the other they are saying they are ....

I guess it is just best if we try and avoid them at all costs.

Sat Jun 18, 2005 8:54 am

It proves that even though they *say* they aren't liable on the ticket, it really means they are. So by all means, if anything happens to your vehicle if you're ever parked on one of there lots, go ahead and sue.

They are liable.

Sat Jun 18, 2005 9:16 am

Lionheart wrote:It proves that even though they *say* they aren't liable on the ticket, it really means they are. So by all means, if anything happens to your vehicle if you're ever parked on one of there lots, go ahead and sue.

They are liable.

It's not as simple as all that Robert. I don't like their attitude either but a more public forum will be needed than this website to make anything happen.

Anyone know a lawyer to find out what they are legally liable for and what they are not. Doesn't really matter since they have the right to make rules which not everyone will agree with.

What is needed is an alternate to the usual lot when it is not available as happened on Thursday

Sat Jun 18, 2005 9:30 am

I am not saying anything will happen. I'm not saying you can do anything on this forum. What I am saying is just because someone writes something on a ticket, it doesn't make it true. I can put a sign at my door saying I'm not liable for your safety, but that wouldn't be true either. I just want you to know by Making a *declaration* that that in itself doesn't create the rule.

Sat Jun 18, 2005 10:09 am

Lionheart wrote:I am not saying anything will happen. I'm not saying you can do anything on this forum. What I am saying is just because someone writes something on a ticket, it doesn't make it true. I can put a sign at my door saying I'm not liable for your safety, but that wouldn't be true either. I just want you to know by Making a *declaration* that that in itself doesn't create the rule.

I know. I have studied contract law as a Purchasing Manager.

Sat Jun 18, 2005 10:21 am

it may not be law but ImPark sucks ... and that's a fact

Sat Jun 18, 2005 12:43 pm

The more that these clowns are slagged, the better. Fifteen bucks for the pleasure of being booted off of their property......

ophelia · Sat Jun 18, 2005 12:53 pm

Lionheart wrote:It proves that even though they *say* they aren't liable on the ticket, it really means they are. So by all means, if anything happens to your vehicle if you're ever parked on one of there lots, go ahead and sue.

They are liable.

Well I would consider a ticket a contract.. They would be liable if consideration is made.. $15 is a valid consideration.. If a contract is broken and one suffers a loss, then I would say your entitled to sue.. But if it is clearly printed that they are not liable for damaged or stolen vehicles then your out of luck. It will be hard to find a precedent for that case, unless your lawyer pulls an erronous decision.

3rd Down · Sat Jun 18, 2005 2:31 pm

What do you guys think would happen .... ir everyone parked in the extreme SE corner of last Thursday's lot .... and then 'tailgated' across the street on the BC Place property lawn?

Might be worth a try

Sat Jun 18, 2005 2:54 pm

ophelia wrote:
Lionheart wrote:It proves that even though they *say* they aren't liable on the ticket, it really means they are. So by all means, if anything happens to your vehicle if you're ever parked on one of there lots, go ahead and sue.

They are liable.
Well I would consider a ticket a contract.. They would be liable if consideration is made.. $15 is a valid consideration.. If a contract is broken and one suffers a loss, then I would say your entitled to sue.. But if it is clearly printed that they are not liable for damaged or stolen vehicles then your out of luck. It will be hard to find a precedent for that case, unless your lawyer pulls an erronous decision.

It's catch 22. There is a contract formed but to a certain degree you are accepting the conditions laid out on the ticket.

If you park on the city street, whether you use a parking meter or not, the city isn't liable for damage or theft.

And that is why we have auto insurance.

ophelia · Sat Jun 18, 2005 3:11 pm

Blue In BC wrote:
ophelia wrote:
Lionheart wrote:It proves that even though they *say* they aren't liable on the ticket, it really means they are. So by all means, if anything happens to your vehicle if you're ever parked on one of there lots, go ahead and sue.

They are liable.
Well I would consider a ticket a contract.. They would be liable if consideration is made.. $15 is a valid consideration.. If a contract is broken and one suffers a loss, then I would say your entitled to sue.. But if it is clearly printed that they are not liable for damaged or stolen vehicles then your out of luck. It will be hard to find a precedent for that case, unless your lawyer pulls an erronous decision.
It's catch 22. There is a contract formed but to a certain degree you are accepting the conditions laid out on the ticket.

If you park on the city street, whether you use a parking meter or not, the city isn't liable for damage or theft.

And that is why we have auto insurance.

yep

I studied a little contract law in my canadian legal systems class.. We have been over many cases dealing with contracts with similar issues regarding liability etc.

Sat Jun 18, 2005 5:17 pm

ophelia wrote:
Blue In BC wrote:
ophelia wrote:
Well I would consider a ticket a contract.. They would be liable if consideration is made.. $15 is a valid consideration.. If a contract is broken and one suffers a loss, then I would say your entitled to sue.. But if it is clearly printed that they are not liable for damaged or stolen vehicles then your out of luck. It will be hard to find a precedent for that case, unless your lawyer pulls an erronous decision.
It's catch 22. There is a contract formed but to a certain degree you are accepting the conditions laid out on the ticket.

If you park on the city street, whether you use a parking meter or not, the city isn't liable for damage or theft.

And that is why we have auto insurance.
yep

I studied a little contract law in my canadian legal systems class.. We have been over many cases dealing with contracts with similar issues regarding liability etc.

Did they give you this example?

NMS >>>>>>>>>>>>> O's >>>>>>>PP
NMS <<<<<<<<<<<<<$16M + <<<< PP

This was one of the largest sports contracts of it's day and was a legal and binding contract written on a napkin.

Recognize it? When put to paper in detail it was a 130 + page document.

Lawyer was Robert Worthington if that helps.

Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:17 am

So, what is the latest with these clowns? Did they send rent-a-cops after you guys to kick you out? You can feel perfectly free to tell a rent-a-cop to go *frig* himself, BTW -- they have no legal standing whatsoever, and are just private citizens in bad polyester uniforms. (Speaking of lawsuits, rent-a-cops are all told now explicitly that they are not to get into any kind of physical encounter with anyone.) Tell him to call the cops if he is concerned -- the worst that would have happened is that VPD would have shown up, about an hour later, and told you guys you had to leave. By that time, you would have been gone anyway.

I had a hilarious encounter with a rent-a-cop last Fall on the Riverview Park lands in Coquitlam. My family was there with friends of ours, and the kids were all playing in the big piles of leaves. We were taking photos, and along came a rent-a-cop saying that photos were banned on the lands, and we would have to leave. (He worked for the hospital portion.) When I told him that it was designated park land, which it is, he said that he could confiscate our cameras. I invited him to give that a try and see how it worked out for him, at which point he changed tacts and said he could call Coquitlam RCMP. I invited him to do that as well, at which point he went away and did "surveillance" on us from a couple hundred yards away. It was pretty humorous.

Bottom line? Rent-a-cops are there just to provide a presence and intimidate you. If you refuse to be intimidated, their only recourse is to call the police. Somehow, I can't see that busting up a tailgater would have been a big priority for the boys in blue.

D, if you really want to stick it to Impark, get this story out in the mainstream papers via friendly sports reporters. There is nothing companies hate worse than bad PR. They generally laugh off attempts at consumer boycotts, because they never work. Bad PR, OTOH, can be really painful, and delivers lasting damage.

Sun Jun 19, 2005 10:01 am

D, if you really want to stick it to Impark, get this story out in the mainstream papers via friendly sports reporters. There is nothing companies hate worse than bad PR. They generally laugh off attempts at consumer boycotts, because they never work.

I'm not wasting any effort or on Impark. they suck and that won't change

Impark Sucks

Login • Register