In fact, the terms of the owners of the parking garage could be considered to be legally unreasonable and therefore there could indeed be grounds for a law suit against them.
This is due to the fact that within the UCTA 1977 Act and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, there have been many clauses within company terms rendered ineffective due to the fact that they are totally infeasible (MacDonald 2004, p. 69). Of course there have been many cases that have been variant from this one which have been found to hold unreasonable terms and therefore the party of each case was held responsible for the adversities that arose to the defendants. These could be cases of faulty goods and the terms of sale unreasonable, or it could be of cases stemming from an even simpler nature.
One case that was found to have unreasonable terms and of which the defendant won was in AEG Ltd v. Logic Resource Ltd (Bradgate 1997, p. 582). Of course though this was not a case that involved any form of injury to the defendant it could have resulted in loss of profit and adversity for the company. Therefore based on the laws of the UCTA 1977 Act, the defendant was awarded that which he was asking in the case due to the unreasonableness of the plaintiff's terms in the contract. This could be viewed in a similar light in regards to Helen's case and the terms in the parking garage. ...
Therefore, for reasons such as these and others similar, the UCTA 1977 Act looks at all occurrences, not simply injury related ones. In Helen's case the terms are obviously unreasonable(as has been stated) and in that regard can not be binding as a form of protection for the owners to not have to face negligent charges and restitution damages by the defendant, which is Helen. Furthermore, because the notice in the garage and the memo are not incorporated logically then there is a definite unreasonable factor being presented. Helen might have assumed that the threat of injury or danger to her body or car was only slight because she was not aware of the falling debris in the garage due to the construction. However, the London Shoe company was aware of the construction and therefore, as was stated should have known to shut down the parking garage until the construction was totally completed so that there would be no unfortunate accidents or injuries. Yet the company failed to do this and it resulted in a very adverse outcome for Helen. The owners of the parking garage definitely can not deny a "sense of liability" to Helen due to the fact that they did not properly post about the construction in the parking garage and the construction in itself deviated far from any minute injury or adverse occurrence that could have taken place at any other time in the garage (Barmes 2004, p. 435).
Furthermore, since the contract with the parking garage assigning parking privileges to employees seemed to be breached then the owners themselves have a liability to the defendant as has been stated. The reason that there was a breach is due to the fact that the circumstances surrounding the parking garage changed when the construction took