What is the contractual situation in the case of quishing?

Question

QR code scams, termed "quishing", are being reported. This involves placing a QR code sticker directing to a scam site over a legitimate parking sign. This article has a legible image of such a sign (below).

My understanding is that in the normal course of events the sign forms the basis of a contract between the car park owner and the driver, and parking and paying would constitute acceptance of the contract. In the case that the sign had been altered such the instruction to "Pay Here" directed one to an different site, and the driver paid that site believing they were fulfilling their contractual obligations, what would be the situation? Has a contract been formed? If so, was it based on the original or altered sign? Does the driver owe the car park any money for the parking or late fees, which as I understand it are usually contractual terms? I am interested from the point of view of the driver.

Answer 1

You have a contract with the car park owner that you have breached

You were required to pay, and you didn’t. Why you didn’t is your problem, not theirs.

Legally, it’s no different than any other type of payment redirection scams - you haven’t paid the person you owe money to, so you still owe the money.

However, there is a slight wrinkle. You could mount an argument that the parking company has been negligent in allowing their sign to be vandalised. They probably owe you a duty of care, but there is real question is whether they had discharged that duty. That is, what had they done to guard against such quishing and whether that was reasonable in the circumstances. For example, if they could demonstrate that they inspected the signs regularly, they would not be liable. How regularly is reasonable will depend on the judge. As far as I know, this has not been litigated.