The real question we need to raise is [LWN.net]

The real question we need to raise is

Posted Aug 11, 2006 10:28 UTC (Fri) by NRArnot (subscriber, #3033)
In reply to: The real question we need to raise is by rakoenig
Parent article: A couple of lessons on the hazards of proprietary software

Don't know about the USA and I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt it's a crime. More likely it's a breach of contract and a civil court dispute.

The motorist has a contract with the parking facility, which explicitly or implicitly says he'll get his car back on demand. There's probably some degree of discaimer possible for mechanical or system failures, but again almost certainly a legal implication that such failure should be attended to with a degree of urgency.

So the motorist can sue in the civil courts for the loss of use of his car, if the court feels that some initial period of delay was reasonable then he may not get all of the costs he incurred.

As for the contract between the parking operator and the software company, I won't venture an opinion. It's possible that the operator might be able to sue the software house for the costs awarded to the motorists. It would again all depend on the contract, its implied terms, and on what is and is not reasonable in a contract.

BTW if the parking operator had gone bust, the motorists could be in for a long wait. First a liquidator would have to be appointed. Then he'd have to work out how to get the cars out. They'd remain the motorist's property, but reasonable delay about extracting them in these circumstances could be weeks. Motorists beware.

(Log in to post comments)

The real question we need to raise is

Posted Aug 12, 2006 0:50 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

I don't see a crime here either. I do see some civil liability, but not in contracts.

There's no contract between the vehicle owner and Robotic Parking. There's a contract between the vehicle owner and the city (technically, a utility operated by the city, but we'll just call it the city). The city owns the garage and hired Robotic Parking to take money, park cars, etc. While it might seem obvious that the parties intended for the car to be delivered back at a certain time, the contract probably didn't actually include that. That kind of detail doesn't get implied; it has to be said. But the city still owes the vehicle owner money for the tort of conversion (the city effectively stole the vehicle). This is the cost to the city of the city's poor job of negotiating its contract with Robotic Parking.

Robotic Parking had a contract with the city to operate the garage, and Robotic Parking used its own software to do it; the city never had any right to use the software. This is a well known contracting hazard known as "single sourcing." You depend on something only one vendor can provide.