Quote Originally Posted by OpenGambit View Post
I don't see how it could construed the other way, perhaps you can explain.

But the way I see it is, impark is offering a unilateral contract, which is accepted by a driver upon entering the lot.
you can argue that a contract is not formed until the ticket is purchased but taht doesnt' make sense because they also argue that the violation ticket is contractually based, meaning there is a contract before you pay.

Negligence is a tort concept and not really applicable to contract law in this instance.
Point being that if the contract is in force from the point that the vehicle enters the lot then Impark is failing in their part of the contract, by failing to produce the ticket.

The 'negligence', that I was speaking of, is 'wilful negligence', since they can expect to obtain a higher fee from the 'offence notice' than they can from the actual parking fee. In other words if they have no pressing reason for repairing their ticket dispensers, then they are failing in their portion of the contracted service. Given that they have people who constantly drive around to their lots in order to verify that the vehicles parking in them are displaying tickets, it's ridiculous that these same people don't verify the function of the ticket dispensers that they pass within mere feet of.