This a provocative issue told us that almost every case with same sued won in company side. it needed to be clarified because it provoke the law enforcement credibility.

If we read the law no. 8 of year 1999, section 5 said that the obligation of consumer is to read with carefully about what kind of needs and services they will get. This concerned to the statement “your damage and your lost is not our responsibility” that wrote with a small font. The parking services company had already given the writing information and the consumer just need to read it carefully. In other word, this law actually made the consumer can’t put the sue to trial because of the damage and lost.

This make us understand why this case is a rare wining.

2.      There an inexpediency between headline and content from the story. Tag line said that court protects the consumer parking right with an open statement that supreme court encouraged court provision but the content was a debatable argument about the insurance of consumer cars if they parked.

If this about a that rare winning then we had to concern on the reason why court make that decision instead to discuss next step of this case or debating about was the insurance is a good plan to protect the consumer right. We can write article with many focus issue one same case