"Buddenbrooks" wrote in message
...

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
Eh? Like getting on the wrong train by mistake and being charged a "full
anytime fare - no railcard discounts" ? [EMT announcement of their
standard policy, earlier today]



Since no contract exists, you have boarded a train in error there is no
intention to use the service provided you probably cannot be compelled to
pay anything. You will of course have to vacate the train at the earliest
opportunity and pay for your own ongoing transport.

Terms and conditions can only be enforced if you have agreed to them,
normally by the act of paying for the service.

rubbish

Starting to use the service amounts to entering the contract. The fact that
it is not the intended train is irrelevant, if it is going to the correct
station.

tim

Starting to use the service amounts to entering the contract.

A contract cannot exist unless a fee has been expressly agreed.
This is why Ryan Air charge 1p for its 'free' tickets. Without this
monetary exchange it cannot claim a contract exists
and therefore the terms and conditions apply. It is also why you tick the 'I
have read the terms and conditions' before the payment.

It is also why lots of vouchers have a marked value of 0.001p. A meaningless
value but represents a 'payment' and allows the terms and conditions to
be contractual.

Because the rail system has come out of a government body it may have
special statutes applying that are specific to transport law.
As a private company its terms and conditions are meaningless unless it can
show you have entered into contract with them.

A key point is that both parties understand what they are getting from the
contract:

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Meeting_of_the_minds


Remember Cheri Blair got off from boarding a train without a ticket and
the means to pay for one because
she believed she could pay in Euros, while the rail company's terms and
conditions do not allow for this.
The key point being Cheri Blair is a barrister and the rail company saw
little point in bluffing that there terms and conditions applied.

"Buddenbrooks" wrote in message



http://wapedia.mobi/en/Meeting_of_the_minds


Remember Cheri Blair got off from boarding a train without a ticket
and the means to pay for one because
she believed she could pay in Euros, while the rail company's terms
and conditions do not allow for this.
The key point being Cheri Blair is a barrister and the rail company
saw little point in bluffing that there terms and conditions applied.

pedantCherie Booth QC is a barrister. Cherie Blair is the wife of the
former prime minister. I know of no barrister named "Cheri
Blair"./pedant

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
pedantCherie Booth QC is a barrister. Cherie Blair is the wife of the
former prime minister. I know of no barrister named "Cheri
Blair"./pedant


Nah .. she stopped being Booth when she became Mrs. Blair.

"Buddenbrooks" wrote in message

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
pedantCherie Booth QC is a barrister. Cherie Blair is the wife of
the former prime minister. I know of no barrister named "Cheri
Blair"./pedant


Nah .. she stopped being Booth when she became Mrs. Blair.

Not professionally, she didn't.

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"Buddenbrooks" wrote in message

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
pedantCherie Booth QC is a barrister. Cherie Blair is the wife of
the former prime minister. I know of no barrister named "Cheri
Blair"./pedant


Nah .. she stopped being Booth when she became Mrs. Blair.

Not professionally, she didn't.


A rose by any other name

In message , at 14:37:19 on Sat, 24
Oct 2009, Buddenbrooks remarked:
Because the rail system has come out of a government body it may have
special statutes applying that are specific to transport law.

Yes, there are special rules about paying for rail travel.

Remember Cheri Blair got off from boarding a train without a ticket
and the means to pay for one because
she believed she could pay in Euros, while the rail company's terms and
conditions do not allow for this.
The key point being Cheri Blair is a barrister and the rail company saw
little point in bluffing that there terms and conditions applied.

Her incident neither sets a precedent, nor demonstrates what the rule
for "mere mortals" is.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...

Her incident neither sets a precedent, nor demonstrates what the rule for
"mere mortals" is.

Obviously no precident is set as no court case occured to make one.
However traveling without a ticket is well reviewed in courts.

It depends on whether travelling without a ticket is a civil or criminal
offence.
If it is civil then a contract has to be shown to exist between the rail
company and the traveller. Contracts are two sided affairs and do not exist
merely because one party
says it does. Clearly a passanger has by action shown an intent to enter
into some contract, which may be to travel from Waterloo Directly to Bristol
Parkway.
So the passenger has offerd to enter into a contract with the company by
entering the train. The representative of the company (conductor) may accept
this offer to treat by selling a ticket. The conductor may decline, as no
contract yet exists he is free to decline, he may do so for many or in fact
any reason other than those proscibed by law such as a racial decision. One
of the reasons to decline is that the train being the Waterloo to Exeter
train he cannot comply with the single train trip to Bristol that the other
party wishes, so no contract has been agreed. At this point the customer
should vacate the train. If he is prevented from doing so by the action of
the rail company (i.e. the train has now left Waterloo)
that is not a contractual issue.

A similar example is say you get in a Taxi and the driver moves off, you say
where you want to go and the driver says, North Side Taxis dont go Sounth of
the river I'll take you back to the Taxi Rank and you can get a All London
Taxi mate. Would you pay their standard £10 minimum hire charge?


As you mentioned precident,

I doubt you will find that any rail company has taked a passenger to court
over boarding the wrong train. Many passengers may well have paid up, but
that is back to mugging.

In message , at 06:57:21 on Sun,
25 Oct 2009, Buddenbrooks remarked:
It depends on whether travelling without a ticket is a civil or
criminal offence.

It's a criminal offence (modulo some exceptions where tickets weren't
available to buy at the station where you boarded).
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 06:57:21 on Sun, 25
Oct 2009, Buddenbrooks remarked:
It depends on whether travelling without a ticket is a civil or criminal
offence.

It's a criminal offence (modulo some exceptions where tickets weren't
available to buy at the station where you boarded).
--

I am still googeling for any reference to an arrest for having no valid
ticket while on the wrong train.

However I did find a BR explanation of how a contract with them comes about
:#

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...an_elderly_per

A ticket forms a 'contract' and the 'terms and conditions' printed
on it are part of that contract and are binding on both parties as
there has been 'consideration' by an exchange of money.

So BR terms and conditions do not apply as no contract has been made.

So we are back to either common law or statute law, which would be in
Hansard or Parliamentary Acts not T&Cs