I recently asked why we have the word "pigheaded", since pigs are not particularly stubborn animals as far as I know.

In the same spirit I ask, "What on earth does 'piggy-back' have to do with pigs?"

looks as if it's an ancient egghorn:

From the online etymology dictionary: 1838, probably a folk-etymology alteration of pick pack (1565), which perhaps is from pick, a dial. variant of pitch (v.).

Wordmatic

I've seen it sometimes as "pickaback".

It's not in the eggcorn database but it does look like it might be an eggcorn.

quote:

Originally posted by wordmatic:
egghorn

Same with that!

Anyone for a 3-A gomlet?

quote:

3-A gomlet?

um, yum?

WM

I've always felt that eggcorns have some relationship to the languages documented by Afferbeck Lauder.

I just found a new use (to me, anyway) of the word piggybacking. The city of Chicago thinks it is piggybacking at the meter when someone puts money into a parking meter, leaves before the time is up, and someone else parks there using the unused time. Therefore, our second city is experimenting with using ParkMagic, which will change all of that. I agree with the Chicago Tribune editorial that said instead of calling it piggybacking at the meter, they think Chicago's answer is double dipping.

This has been in place in many UK car parks for ages. If you have unexpired time on your ticket you can't allow anyone else to use it by giving them the ticket since you have to enter your registration. The authorities suggest, as it seems do the Chicago authorities, that this is a form of theft,

I haven't the time to take up the cudgels but I believe the theft is being committed by the authorities, not the motorist. If a piece of space is rented for an hour for the purpose of parking a vehicle, then it has been paid for. It matters not whether the space is occupied by one or ten vehicles during that period. It is much the same as any other rental of space; once it is rented it makes little difference who's occupying the space and any landlord who tried to rent out space twice, on the grounds that the original renter had vacated the premises before the end of the rental period, would be committing an offence.

Had I the time I would like to be accused of the offence of allowing someone to use a space that I had paid for and let the matter go to trial. I would use the argument I have cited as my defence and let the courts decide.

I agree with you, RE. Once the rent is paid on that space, it should not matter who occupies it.

We have grocery stores in the area that give you discounts on gasoline if you buy groceries there. You get 3-5 fill-ups a month, and your discount is calculated based on how much money you spent at the store in the previous month. I have a friend who drives with her husband each week so that they get one fill-up in both cars - they park on opposite sides of the same pump and simply use the hose in both vehicles before putting the hose back, filling both cars in "one" fill-up.

What do you think of this instance of piggy-backing? It seems to be slightly shady to me.

Think of it not as a rental but a lease. If you leave before your allotted time is up, you forfeit the rest of your money. Also, most leases stipulate that you are not free to sublet.

quote:

What do you think of this instance of piggy-backing? It seems to be slightly shady to me.

It depends what the deal is. If it's on any petrol you buy, then it's up to you what you do with the stuff. But if it is petrol for one agreed vehicle then it's wrong.

quote:

Think of it not as rent but a lease. If you leave before your allotted time is up, you forfeit the rest of your money. Also, most leases stipulate that you are not free to sublet.

But the lease remains yours unless you surrender it. If you choose to leave the property empty that's your business (unless the conditions of the lease don't permit this - in which case you are in breech of contract).

And you're not subletting the parking space as no consideration is involved. If you chose to let some friends live in your rented house for a while, providing you don't charge them, no sub-letting takes place.

But you are in breach of contract, as it is stated that you cannot transfer the ticket (or lease) to some third party. What's wrong with that? It's the same thing with a movie ticket. I can't leave five minutes into the movie and transfer the ticket to somebody outside so they can enter and watch the rest of the show.

Two points:

If it is a condition of contract then you might be in breach of contract and the authority could recover damages to set their loss. So maybe you would need to pay them the cost of the hour's parking fee that they didn't get. That's a contractual (civil) matter, not a criminal matter.

Secondly, under our Unfair Contracts legislation the condition might be held to be unreasonable and thus unenforceable.

In both instances the courts would need to decide.

In both instances the courts would need to decide.

As long as nobody brought up web-based parking schemes.

quote:

As long as nobody brought up web-based parking schemes.

Westminster City Council have brought in a means of paying for parking by phone. The driver either phones or send a text to pay for parking by credit card. All meters and similar old-fashioned cash-collection methods have been withdrawn. That system presupposes three things:

1. the driver has a phone;
2. the driver has a credit card;
3. the driver is willing to send credit card details by an unsecure method.

quote:

That system presupposes three things:

1. the driver has a phone;
2. the driver has a credit card;
3. the driver is willing to send credit card details by an unsecure method.

True. But why should Westminster care? It doesn't matter to them that ordinary people are inconvenienced or defrauded. After all, the MPs and other important people get special parking provision...

similar old-fashioned cash-collection methods have been withdrawn

You'd think with a 14-to -1 ration of CCTV cameras to citizens in the UK, they wouldn't have collect the money at the POS anyway. Until face recognition software gets better, couldn't parliament just pass a law that everybody should wear their IDs visibly? Or maybe a subcutaneous RFID chip would do the trick.

San Francisco has similar laws regarding parking meters. Like most cities it forbids piggybacking and meter-feeding (returning to your car and putting more money in so as to park beyond the maximum time on the meter).

While it may seem like you have entered into some kind of rental arrangement when you park at a meter, you haven't. You haven't rented the space, or entered into a civil contract. You have parked you car on a city street, and are subject to municipal parking regulations, whatever they may be.

In our case, the law says that it is illegal to park at a meter, unless you put money in the meter, don't stay after the meter has expired, and don't stay beyond the maximum time on the meter.

quote:

While it may seem like you have entered into some kind of rental arrangement when you park at a meter, you haven't. You haven't rented the space, or entered into a civil contract.

All that needs to happen for a contract (in English Law) to be in place is offer, acceptance and consideration. The parking space has been offered; the motorist has accepted it and the consideration (the parking fee in this case) has been exchanged. In English Law a contract exists. There may be conditions of contract that restrict what you do with that space - but they will only apply if they are "reasonable".

American Law may be different, I accept, but most of it was based on English Law originally so I doubt it is all that different insofar as the (ancient) laws of contract are concerned.

quote:

All that needs to happen for a contract (in English Law) to be in place is offer, acceptance and consideration. The parking space has been offered; the motorist has accepted it and the consideration (the parking fee in this case) has been exchanged. In English Law a contract exists.

Fine. Let's take the simpler case of a private parking lot. A contract exists between you and the lot, but not a rental contract. You aren't renting a space, you are paying for the privilege of parking for a limited period of time. If you choose to leave early, you cannot now sell (or transfer) your contract to person B because the lot didn't make a contract with person B, it made a contract with you. If person B wants to park there, he's going to have to enter into a contract with the lot himself, unless the contract has a specific provision saying it is transferable.

IANAL, but I believe that, in general, contracts aren't transferable, unless it's explicitly written into the contract. Selling my marriage contract to someone else won't make him my wife's husband, for the simple reason that it denies her the choice of entering into the contract with him or not

For municipal parking on public streets the situation, as I said, is quite straightforward: you can't piggyback and you can meter-feed because the law says you can't. There's no offer and no contract. On some streets you can park for 4 hours, on some 2, on some not at all. Some 4 hour zones include meters. When you park in those zones, the laws on metered parking come into effect. The city is not entering into a contract with you, it is allowing the privilege of parking provided you pay the mandated fees and follow the laws.

quote:

There may be conditions of contract that restrict what you do with that space - but they will only apply if they are "reasonable".

I doubt that "unreasonable" would include non-transferability or non-refundability. I don't think the situation is that much different from purchasing a non-refundable, non-transferable airline ticket. It may seem unreasonable to you, but the courts require more than legal folklore to make a case.

quote:

There's no offer and no contract

Offer, acceptance and consideration are all that is required for a contract to exist. It might be a contract hedged about by restrictions but it is a contract. The parking space is offered, the motorist accepts the offer and pays. If the car park operators then chose to refuse to provide the space - by towing the car away, say - then they will be in breach of contract.

Non-refundable and non-transferable air tickets are thus not because of the kind of contract (a contract for carriage of passengers) but because of the restrictions of a particular contract for a particular kind of ticket. Full-fare tickets are normally fully refundable and, by extension, transferable.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Richard English,

quote:

quote:
There's no offer and no contract


Offer, acceptance and consideration [...] If the car park operators then chose[...]

Read what I wrote. There is no offer and no contract when you park at a meter on the street

Non-refundable and non-transferable air tickets parking permits are thus not because of the kind of contract (a contract for carriage of passengers parking your car) but because of the restrictions of a particular contract.

quote:

What do you think of this instance of piggy-backing? It seems to be slightly shady to me.

I'd call it shady, CW, but I am not familiar with the offer so I am not sure. Certainly our grocery stores aren't that generous!

As for the parking, neveu and zmj are technically correct, I think, about how parking works in the U.S. However, I think it is awfully chintzy of the government. The hour is paid for, so for heaven's sake don't double dip. It's just as bad as taxing on taxes, which is also done with our inheritance taxes.

I suppose I can more understand prohibiting feeding of meters to give more people a chance to park. Yet, I suspect their real reason is to give more people a chance of getting a $50 ticket for being 10 minutes late to their car. Or, as has happened to me, to come back on time, but to find a ticket. Try fighting city hall on that one, and you get nowhere. In fact, my car was towed once, even though I was back to the car before the towing time (4:00 pm). A policeman there verified that. It has been 3 years now, and I still don't have my $165 back (from getting my car out of jail). I am sure my chances of getting that money back are zilch to nil.

So gentlemen from the great state of California, I have no sympathies whatsoever for the parking authorities, at least in the great state of Illinois.

quote:

Read what I wrote. There is no offer and no contract when you park at a meter on the street

I am not familiar with US Law, but in English Law a contract will exist as soon as you park at a meter and put in the money. An offer does not need to be explicit; implicit offers are perfectly acceptable; indeed they are common. Terms and conditions of the contract, regardless of how fair or unfair they might be, do not alter this basic fact.

Many people believe that, to be valid, a contract has to be formal. But no. Informal contracts happen all the time and most of us will contract dozens of time every day. When you get on a 'bus you are accepting the implicit offer of a contract for carriage; when you pick up a bar of chocolate in a supermarket you are entering into a contact for the supply of goods; When you call the garage to come and fix your puncture you are entering into a contract for service. All these unwritten and informal contracts are legally valid and binding under English Law - and I should be very surprised were they not so under US Law.

In our town, a devilish new system has been in place for a year. Every space is numbered, and paystations are located at regular intervals. You park, note the space no., go to the paystation, & enter the no. & your money. You receive a ticket-stub (your written contract!), stating the space number and the time until which the ticket-holder is free to park there. I doubt if anyone can stop you from phoning a friend in 10 mins to say "hurry along to space X, I'll give you the stub which still has time on it." Not practical, of course. So, like a lessee who needs to move before the lease is up, off you go. The next guy-- a potential squatter-- can try moving in for a while, but has no idea whether someone's paid the lease or not. Sir Trafficcop, however, need only punch in a code to find out which spaces are supposed to be empty!

That IS perverse!

Speaking as a lawyer, but without having researched the matter. This is solely my top-of-the-head view; I'm neither expression an legal opinion nor "practicing law" in any jurisdiction, including my own.

Richard: If a piece of space is rented for an hour for the purpose of parking a vehicle, then it has been paid for. ((true, if the space-taking "is" a "rental", not some other kind of agreement) It matters not whether the space is occupied by one or ten vehicles during that period. It is much the same as any other rental of space; once it is rented it makes little difference who's occupying the space (There are plenty of rentals where it matters who is occupying the space. That is a matter for lessor and lessee to negotiate.) and any landlord who tried to rent out space twice, on the grounds that the original renter had vacated the premises before the end of the rental period, would be committing an offence. (False. In fact, a tenant departs early on a one-year residence-lease, the landlord is expected to re-let (so as to mitigate damages), and to offset against rent due whatever he collects (or reasonably could have collected) by re-letting.)

neveu: You haven't rented the space, or entered into a civil contract. You have parked you car on a city street, and are subject to municipal parking regulations, whatever they may be. (First sentence incorrect, I believe. A contract exists -- but as the second sentence suggests, it incorporates the terms the city sets in its parking ordinances.)

Richard: Offer, acceptance and consideration are all that is required for a contract to exist. (True) implicit offers are perfectly acceptable ... unwritten and informal contracts are legally valid and binding. (True) Terms and conditions of the contract ... do not alter this basic fact. (True -- with the caveat that to judge whether a contract is breached, one must consider what the terms and conditions are.

When the city offers the space, it offers it on the terms and conditions of its own ordinances. If those ordinances say "no piggybacking allowed", then the motorist accepts those terms by taking the space.

Also note that there is nothing unusual about a prepaid contract that one party may terminate (without refund). For example, a movie-theater ticket so specifies, as you will see if you examine the ticket stub.)

Richard: under our Unfair Contracts legislation the condition might be held to be unreasonable and thus unenforceable. ... they will only apply if they are "reasonable". (I very much doubt that all UK contracts are subject to a requirement of "reasonableness". Imagine an world where businessmen cannot reliably expect courts to enforce their explicit contractual language, where prospects of enforcement are subject to doubt over whether the judge will find the language "reasonable"? It would be highly impractical to try to conduct business in the face of that uncertainty.)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: shufitz,

quote:

I very much doubt that all UK contracts are subject to a requirement of "reasonableness"

I suspect that this is not the case in US Law. However, under English Law any contracting party can seek to have a contract set aside on the grounds of unfairness. The gist of the Law is that: "any contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer". Although many businesses were very wary when this legislation was enacted, most have managed to live with it. Indeed, one could argue that it has made organisations more careful about their terms and conditions of contract - to the benefit of all. The full statutory instrument is here http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19992083.htm

Everything else you have said I agree with apart from the matter of the tenant who vacated the property early - and this is a misunderstanding caused by my careless wording. I wasn't referring to a tenant who had departed and stopped paying his rent. I was speaking of a tenant who, for whatever reason, had stopped occupying the premises but whose lease was still in place and who was still paying his rent. This kind of situation could arise if, for example, the tenant had suddenly had to travel away for a lengthy period on business, but wanted to be sure that his abode was still available when he returned.

quote: under English Law any contracting party can seek to have a contract set aside on the grounds of unfairness.

I don't believe the regulations apply to "any contract" or party.

Basically, they apply only when one party but not the other is acting in his/her/its trade or business. They do not cover purely non-business contracts (as when you sell your home to a family), or purely business ones (as when you buy your business supplies). (See §3 defining "consumer" and "seller".) Also, they apply only to "contracts covered by these Regulations," a term not defined in the extract in the linked material but presumably defined elsewhere. Finally, only one party (the non-business party) may challenge the contract under these regulations.

quote: I was speaking of a tenant who ... had stopped occupying ... but ... was still paying his rent.

A landlord would find that objectionable. Residential leases and mortgages typically require occupancy, because a vacant home is much more attractive to thieves and vandals. (A secondary reason is that significant damage can result if a plumbing-leak or the like remains unattended because no one is present to spot the problem.)

But of course, my last comment is not relevant to the parking-space issue!

quote:

Sir Trafficcop, however, need only punch in a code to find out which spaces are supposed to be empty!

Bethree, does that mean that the policeman won't know whether the car in the spot is a squatter or the original car? He just knows if the spot is empty or not? That is an interesting way to do it.

quote:

Speaking as a lawyer, but without having researched the matter. This is solely my top-of-the-head view; I'm neither expressing an legal opinion nor "practicing law" in any jurisdiction, including my own.

Can you tell he's a lawyer?

quote:

I don't believe the regulations apply to "any contract" or party.

The exceptions are shown in the instrument. They do not apply to Government legislation or similar official "contracts" and they do not apply to conditions that have been jointly agreed (which would usually be the case in a private contract such as that you exemplify).

The legislation is intended to protect customers against unfair terms and conditions that have been placed in contracts by traders simply to protect themselves. For example, any used-car dealer who put a condition into his standard contract of sale that said, "We are not responsible for any fault or problem with any vehicle we supply, regardless of how this might be caused" would probably be in breach of the legislation.

Whether the terms and conditions of a parking contract would be excluded (because they are "official") I wouldn't care to guess. It might be something that a court would need to decide.

Seattle is switching from parking meters to pay stations.

We have these in many cities, too. I suspect that the old parking meter is on the way out.

quote:

neveu: You haven't rented the space, or entered into a civil contract. You have parked you car on a city street, and are subject to municipal parking regulations, whatever they may be. (First sentence incorrect, I believe. A contract exists -- but as the second sentence suggests, it incorporates the terms the city sets in its parking ordinances.)

So where do fees and permits leave off and contracts begin, or is this a contract in the sense of the tacit social contract we all have with the state, that if we obey the laws they won't toss us in the pokey? Is a bridge toll a contract? A hunting permit?

quote: So where do fees and permits leave off and contracts begin? Is a bridge toll a contract? A hunting permit?

Interesting question. OED defines contract as "2. In a legal sense: An agreement enforceable by law." But it also states, "1. a. A mutual agreement between two or more parties that something shall be done or forborne by one or both."

I would suggest that a contract is a legally binding relationship between parties, creating rights and/or duties, entered into by mutual consent. (Contrast a tort: though an auto accident createst rights and duties (the innocent victim's right to compensation), it is not entered by mutual consent.) A permit or license is a permission to do something that would be impermissible but for the permit. (Black's Law Dictionary, paraphrased)

So I'd say that a hunting permit is indeed a kind of contract. (The thing "to be done or foreborne," though not obvious, is the state forebearing any interference with your hunting activity.) Similarly, payment of a bridge toll creates a contract, the state agreeing to let you cross the bridge.

But nev, I'm not saying that views differing from mine would be wrongheaded!

In English Law (and so far as I know, Scottish and Northern Irish Law), a contract needs but three things to be legally biding:

Offer (the service or product is made available).
Acceptance (the offer is accepted by the party who wants it).
Consideration (some form of value - usually money but it could be payment in kind).

All contracts will have terms and conditions and, if these are not explicit, then they will be implicit under Common Law. For example, if two parties contracted and one of the parties did not fulfil his or her obligations under the contractual agreement in a "reasonable" period of time, then he or she will have been guilty of a breach of contract and the aggrieved party could seek damages. Of course, such implicit conditions can be hard to prove (what is "reasonable"?) and it is therefore sensible to agree conditions in any contract.

There is obviously much more that could be said, but, in essence, that is what contracting is all about and, fortunately (because most of us will contract several time every day) most informal and unwritten contracts proceed without and problems. Those that do not are probably a more lucrative source of income to the legal profession than torts - although the litigious society which is becoming the norm here - means that many more solicitors are moving into this area of work.

Richard, after you'd asserted that all contract terms are subject to a requirement that they be "reasonable" and "fair"¹, you qualified that broad position, notitng that the relevant statute has "exceptions" (Oct. 21; I would think a better description would be "limited coverage").

But your last post might appear to revert to your original claim of an overriding "reasonableness" requirement². I trust that's not what you intended. But I wouldn't want to leave a casual reader with the impression that judges have free reign to insert, delete or modify contract terms by superimposing their notions of what is "reasonable" or "fair".

---

¹Quoting:

"the condition might be held to be unreasonable and thus unenforceable" (Oct. 18),

"conditions of contract ... will only apply if they are 'reasonable'" (Oct. 18, later),

"any contracting party can seek to have a contract set aside on the grounds of unfairness" (Oct. 20).

²You say that one who does not perform "in a 'reasonable' period of time ... will have been guilty of a breach". (This time you base that view on Common Law. Of course, if Common Law so held, there would be no need for a statute!) For simplicity, you omit the proviso, the if provision, of your previous sentence.

quote:

But your last post might appear to revert to your original claim of an overriding "reasonableness" requirement

Apologies. I have been unclear.

When I used the word "reasonable" I was citing an example of non-performance of a contract due to its not being completed in a timely fashion. I should have used a different term - but, of course, the term "reasonable" is so usual in Common Law - reasonable force; reasonable standards of work; reasonable care - that it's difficult to avoid. I certainly didn't mean it to have anything to do the The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, where any condition that was deemed by a court to be unfair would almost certainly also be deemed to be unreasonable. Whilst "fairness" and "reasonableness" are not synonyms, their meanings surely overlap a great deal.

The drafting of legal instruments is a hugely difficult task if they are to be clear, unambiguous, understandable, concise and ensuring they avoid the issue of unintended consequences. Most legal instruments I have seen fail in one or more of these areas - which is why the courts do so well from hearing test cases to decide exactly what the legislation means.