Overriding offered contract acceptance methods with express written declaration Bob would rather face the consequences of trespassing than pay for a license to occupy a privately owned parking spot. He pulls into the lot which says “by parking here you agree to pay £10/hour. Bob wishes to reject this offer to buy a license and so park his car without any license, ie as a trespasser. He makes this clear by displaying a sign in his windshield or by donning a bumper sticker that reads “I AM TRESPASSING,” or perhaps simply “TRESPASSER”. Has Bob accepted or rejected the proprietor’s contract?
The offeror has stipulated that acceptance is to be by conduct As explained in another answer, given that the offeror has stipulated that parking in the lot will constitute acceptance, and given that the offeror is master of the offer, then the question is whether the act of parking in the lot constitutes acceptance of the contract. I outlined the test in that other answer and will only summarize here: the question becomes &quot;whether the offeror, acting reasonably, would understand that the offeree was assenting to the terms proposed.&quot; This is acceptance by conduct. This is an objective inquiry focusing on how the actions would be understood to a reasonable observer, not an inquiry into the actual states of mind of the offeror or offeree. An example of the above law being applied can be found in University of Edinburgh v. Onifade, 2005 S.L.T. (Sh. Ct.) 63: The pursuers' notice made it plain that their position was that anyone who parked on their property without a permit would have to pay them a fee of £30 per day on that account. The defender, by parking his vehicle on their property without a permit, made it plain that he accepted that position. He signified his acceptance by his conduct in so doing. It is nothing to the purpose for him to maintain that he did not intend to pay because he considered that the pursuers were not entitled to make the charge specified. 'The judicial task is not to discover the actual intentions of each party; it is to decide what each was reasonably entitled to conclude from the attitude of the other.' See also Imperial Parking Canada Corporation v. Toronto (City), 2007 ONCA 649. The signs said: Impark is by this sign offering space for public parking. You accept this offer by parking on this lot. Do not park on this lot if you do not agree to these terms and conditions … If you park and do not display a valid ticket or pass the rate is $69.55 per day or portion thereof. The judge found: the signs posted on Impark’s lots expressly state that Impark consents to the parking of cars without payment in advance and held that the fees that Impark collects are sums owing to it in contract rather than damages for trespass In another parking lot example, Imperial Parking Ltd. v. Canada, 2000 CanLII 15612 (FCA), the Federal Court of Appeal said: In my view, the unequivocal conduct which constitutes acceptance of the appellant's offer to provide a parking space occurs when the driver leaves the lot after parking his or her vehicle. This interpretation is reinforced by the text of the large sign posed at the entrance to the appellant's lot. That is the point in time in which an owner can be deemed to have accepted the appellant's offer. Any time before that moment, a driver can demonstrate his rejection of the appellant's offer by driving away. Those who purchase a ticket must be deemed to have accepted the appellant&quot;s contractual terms upon leaving their parked vehicle in the appellant's lot. As for those who park their vehicles but fail to pay, the act of non-payment is more consistent with the intention to breach a contract than a refusal to enter into one. Bob's sign/note/sticker is not likely an effective rejection of the offer I understand you to be asking whether Bob's sign constitutes rejection of the offer such that Bob's subsequent conduct no longer would be considered acceptance of the contract. A rejection would terminate the offer, such that it can no longer be accepted. However, rejection must be communicated to the offeror (Chitty on Contracts, § 4-124). In examples where apparent acceptance by conduct is negated by evidence of contrary intention, the offeror was in a position to be aware of the rejector's manifest expression of that contrary intention (see examples in Chitty on Contracts, § 4-035).
While it is true that cash is legal tender, this can still be overridden by mutual agreement (i.e. in a contract). So the legal tender status only matters if payment methods were not agreed upon before entering into an agreement. In other words: If a restaurant lets you eat without telling you they do not accept cash, they will have to accept cash. However, if they explicitly tell you they only accept card payments, they can insist on this later. This applies in both the United States, in Germany, and in Canada (see e.g. It may be legal tender, but more businesses are snubbing cash). So to address your points: As I understand the legality would work something like this: 1) I accept the the contract where I agree to pay with card in exchange for food Yes - however, in accepting the contract you also accept that the restaurant is "cashless" (assuming the restaurant clearly tells you so, e.g. by putting up a sign or by saying it in person). I attempt to fulfill the contract to the best of my ability, but am prevented from doing so by circumstances beyond my control Yes. Since you attempted to fulfill the contract, you did not commit the crime of theft (which requires intention not to pay). However, you still owe what you promised when entering into the agreement, which is to pay with a card. At this point I owe the restaurant the money, but since the original transaction failed, this is a debt, which I offer to settle with legal tender No. As explained above, if the agreement stipulates a specific payment method, this generally overrides the "legal tender" aspect. In short: You agreed to pay with a card, so you are required to pay with a card. If you cannot pay with a card, you have not fulfilled your part of the agreement. It is is arguable that it is not your fault, but this does not change your obligation. Now you must either negotiate a suitable alternative (cash, cheque, golden watch...), or come back to pay later with a card. Also, the business may be able to charge you additional costs, such as extra accounting work or interest because of your non-standard payment - that would depend on the details.
The date and location of the signature merely documents when/where the signature was made, and doesn't have a lot of legal significance for ordinary contracts. This information is probably only useful if you need to argue that you could't have signed the contract because you weren't in that town on that day. Despite this small lapse your contract is perfectly valid, in particular you are required to make any payments that are part of this contract. It doesn't make sense to get this corrected. However, if any actual information (for example, you address) changed, then you should notify the gym to update the information.
Not successfully It is not required that a person knows they are dealing with an agent of the principal rather than the principal directly - an agent speaks with the principal’s voice. Robert has consented to allow Elizabeth to act as his agent. It actually doesn’t matter if he consented before she acted or afterwards, he has agreed to be bound by Elizabeth’s actions. Rachel &amp; Jared have agreed to enter the lease and indicated as much by signing the document. It doesn’t matter who signed it for the landlord or even if it was signed - leases have to be in writing but there is no common law rule that they need to be signed.
One possible reading of this clause is: The tenant is required to pay for the preparation of a forfeiture notice, even if ("notwithstanding that") the forfeiture doesn't actually happen ("forfeiture is avoided")--but the tenant doesn't have to pay for the notice if the forfeiture doesn't happen for the following reason ("avoided otherwise than by"): because the court said so ("by relief granted by the court"). In other words: if the Court says the forfeiture notice is bogus, the tenant doesn't have to pay for it. Otherwise, he or she does.
Summary: More information needed, but I have listed out some legal claims available to homeowners when they have similar concerns. There are several issues here which need elaboration before deciding if you can take legal action. The first is: "the destroyed some vegetation on my street." If the by "my street" you mean that the street is part of your property, you may sue the builders for trespass and/or damage to property. If the street isn't your property, but the vegetation is your property, you may sue them for destruction of your property. What you are probably looking for, however, is a prohibitive injunction. This is a court order forcing the builders to avoid doing something, e.g. An order forcing them to avoid using roads adjacent to your property. To obtain such an injunction you will have to prove that what they are doing is violating your rights, is somehow harmful to you or your property, or inevitably will do either of those things. One way to demonstrate this is if you can show that you have a claim under nuisance, or damage to property, or trespass. On the description you have given us, there isn't enough to say your rights are being violated, or that your property has come to harm or will come to harm because of their actions. You should also be aware of claims under nuisance. Nuisance is when someone is doing something that prevents you from "peaceful enjoyment of your land". It appears from your question that the actions of these builders have, in your mind, done this. However there are several aspects that have to be satisfied for this to amount to private nuisance: What the builder are doing must be a "continuing state of affairs." They may have annoyed you by trampling over vegetation, but if this is a "one-off" event, it is unlikely to amount to nuisance. A reasonable person must find the conduct to interfere with the enjoyment of their land. That is to say: it isn't enough that their conduct is making you unable to enjoy your land peacefully, you have to show that any reasonable person in the same situation would find this conduct unacceptable. Finally, the context of your neighbourhood matters: if the behaviour is something expected in a residential area, then it will not amount to a nuisance. For example, heavy drilling in an industrial location will not amount to a nuisance, while the same may do so in a normally quiet neighbourhood.
Portable signs are legal and you have to obey then. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/65 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/482498/2-11.pdf
You are right, the entry and exit photos are only evidence that you were there. This is something they need to prove so the photos may only be for that. Their statement that you didn’t display a valid ticket/permit is, at present an unevidenced assertion. If you contest this, they will provide evidence that you didn’t (e.g. the actual records they refer to) and you would provide evidence that you did and, if it goes to court, the judge will decide what evidence they prefer. As this is not a criminal matter, they need to prove the offence on the balance of probabilities. However, there are almost certainly administrative remedies which will allow you to contest the fine without going to court. This would involve you sending them a copy of the permit and them assessing whether their belief that you didn’t display it is justified or not.