Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16   Report Post  
Old 08-09-2004, 12:53 PM
Peter Crosland
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If he is only claiming the cost of a new shirt, how does that compare
with the cost of consulting a solicitor, defending a claim, etc?


Even if he is entitled to redress he is not entitled to a new shirt! He
could not claim more than the second-hand value that is likely to be
negligible.


  #17   Report Post  
Old 08-09-2004, 01:09 PM
Nick Maclaren
 
Posts: n/a
Default


In article ,
"Peter Crosland" writes:
|
| The stamp manufacturer or supplier have no liability to him. The flower show
| organisers may do but it will be very small. At most he is entitled to value
| of his second-hand shirt which unless it is something quite exceptional will
| be no more than £10 and probably much less. He is not entitled to a new
| replacement. Even assuming the organisers had public liability insurance
| there would almost certainly be an excess of far more than the value of the
| shirt. Offer him a fiver and free entry to next year's show. If you have to
| send a letter to him make sure you put the words "Without prejudice" so that
| the offer can be withdrawn if he is stupid enought to go to court.

If you treat him as offensively as that, I hope that he sues you to
hell and back again!

He has a claim for the REPLACEMENT cost of his shirt, and NOT just
its SALE value, in the condition that it was. As the cheapest decent
shirt is nowadays over 20 quid, he may have bought an up-market one
at 50, and it may have been fairly new, 5 quid is insulting.

And, as BAC points out, he has a RIGHT to take the claim to court
(unless he is a vexatious litigant). And the courts might well be
sympathetic (as far as costs go) if he asked for reasonable
compensation and was given an offensive offer.

Yes, write with "no prejudice", but why not ask him how much he
paid for the shirt and when, and what he is asking for? He MAY be
just asking for an apology and a statement that you won't use that
technology again.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
  #18   Report Post  
Old 08-09-2004, 01:13 PM
Tim Challenger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 10:31:43 +0100, David Hill wrote:

Malcolm said "Ban pass outs. How many do you have, and why do people
want to leave and then come back? "

Well I for one have used pass outs at Hampton court show to take plants back
to my car so that I was able to buy more.
Also have had to go back to the car when the wife had left her medication in
the car (She is taking some medication or another about every 2 hours).


Or if you've run out of money and want to go and get some more, or your
camera or more film or your jumper because it's turned nippy or the baby
needs changing ... ad nauseum
--
Tim C.
  #19   Report Post  
Old 08-09-2004, 02:27 PM
Peter Crosland
 
Posts: n/a
Default

He has a claim for the REPLACEMENT cost of his shirt, and NOT just
its SALE value, in the condition that it was. As the cheapest decent
shirt is nowadays over 20 quid, he may have bought an up-market one
at 50, and it may have been fairly new, 5 quid is insulting.


You are quite wrong. The law does not allow him to be in any better off than
he was. He is not entitled to betterment i.e. he is only entitled to the
second-hand value that is, as I said, unlikely to be more than £10 at the
maximum. Take a look at the prices of secondhand shirts in charity shops if
you don't believe me.

And, as BAC points out, he has a RIGHT to take the claim to court
(unless he is a vexatious litigant). And the courts might well be
sympathetic (as far as costs go) if he asked for reasonable
compensation and was given an offensive offer.


In theory yes, but in practice he would be likely to get short shrift for
taking such a trivial matter to court.


  #20   Report Post  
Old 08-09-2004, 02:46 PM
Nick Maclaren
 
Posts: n/a
Default


In article , "Peter Crosland" writes:
| He has a claim for the REPLACEMENT cost of his shirt, and NOT just
| its SALE value, in the condition that it was. As the cheapest decent
| shirt is nowadays over 20 quid, he may have bought an up-market one
| at 50, and it may have been fairly new, 5 quid is insulting.
|
| You are quite wrong. The law does not allow him to be in any better off than
| he was. He is not entitled to betterment i.e. he is only entitled to the
| second-hand value that is, as I said, unlikely to be more than £10 at the
| maximum. Take a look at the prices of secondhand shirts in charity shops if
| you don't believe me.

Can you not read plain English? Simplifying what I said:

He has a claim for the REPLACEMENT cost of his shirt in the
condition that it was.

You cannot demand that he spends hours of time and many pounds
of money searching second-hand shops for a suitable replacement,
but you can refuse to pay for the "worn" aspect of the shirt.

A fiver is insulting.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.


  #21   Report Post  
Old 08-09-2004, 03:50 PM
BAC
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
If he is only claiming the cost of a new shirt, how does that compare
with the cost of consulting a solicitor, defending a claim, etc?


Even if he is entitled to redress he is not entitled to a new shirt! He
could not claim more than the second-hand value that is likely to be
negligible.



If he decides to claim, he can claim whatever he thinks appropriate,
although that might bear little resemblance to what a court might eventually
make of the matter. However, would the difference in value between a new
replacement shirt and his pre-worn shirt justify the cost and trouble of
contesting the claim? Unlikely, unless thought probable the court would
dismiss the claim without a hearing.


  #22   Report Post  
Old 08-09-2004, 04:41 PM
Peter Crosland
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Can you not read plain English? Simplifying what I said:


Yes I can read plain English and what I am saying is that your statement of
the law in this case is wrong.

He has a claim for the REPLACEMENT cost of his shirt in the
condition that it was.


Indeed and that means effectively the second-hand value that is likely to be
very small.

You cannot demand that he spends hours of time and many pounds
of money searching second-hand shops for a suitable replacement,
but you can refuse to pay for the "worn" aspect of the shirt.


I demanded nothing! I simply stated that if YOU wanted to establish what the
open market value of second-hand shirts was then a charity shop would give
you a reasonable idea of how much they were worth. At no time did I suggest
that the person concerned should take that they should seek a replacement
there. It seems to me that it is you that cannot comprehend plain English.
If it went to court and the claimant won he would would not get more than
the open market value.

A fiver is insulting.


Far from it. It is a realistic statement of the likely worth of the garment
on the open market.


  #23   Report Post  
Old 08-09-2004, 05:00 PM
Franz Heymann
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"David Hill" wrote in message
...
Franz asked "Where on earth did this incredibly stupid idea of

stamping a
visitor instead of issuing a ticket originate? If the ink is

indelible, the
visitor could complain that it can't be removed, and if it is not

indelible,
her own sweat could make it stain her clothes ......."

Where have you been all these years Franz?


I don't live a particularly reclusive life, but I have never been to a
function where they had to stamp me as if I were to be sent somewhere
through the post.
{:-))

[snip]

Franz



  #24   Report Post  
Old 08-09-2004, 06:28 PM
Kay
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Janet Baraclough.
.. writes
The message
from "Ken Richardson" contains these words:

A gentleman who attended our show complained two days later that the ink
from the stamp used as a pass out on the back of his hand got on to his
shirt and cannot be removed. Does he have any right to make a claim.from us
or should we direct him to the manufacturers of the stamp.


Is he claiming the stamp hit his hand, or the shirt?

If the gateperson stamped his hand, surely it was the complainant's
own responsibility to keep an ink mark which he knew was there, away
from his clothing?

I don't buy that one! Someone tells me that if I want to enter a show, I
am going to have an ink stamp, which I don't want, on my hand. And then
I have to worry for the next several hours about keeping my hand away
from my clothing?

If someone is going to insist I have my hand stamped, I reckon they also
have a duty to make sure a) that it is washable and I don't have to wear
the mark for days to come b) that it isn't going to cause permanent
damage to anything it comes in contact with, such as clothing.


--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

  #25   Report Post  
Old 08-09-2004, 06:48 PM
BAC
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...

Can you not read plain English? Simplifying what I said:


Yes I can read plain English and what I am saying is that your statement

of
the law in this case is wrong.

He has a claim for the REPLACEMENT cost of his shirt in the
condition that it was.


Indeed and that means effectively the second-hand value that is likely to

be
very small.

You cannot demand that he spends hours of time and many pounds
of money searching second-hand shops for a suitable replacement,
but you can refuse to pay for the "worn" aspect of the shirt.


I demanded nothing! I simply stated that if YOU wanted to establish what

the
open market value of second-hand shirts was then a charity shop would give
you a reasonable idea of how much they were worth. At no time did I

suggest
that the person concerned should take that they should seek a replacement
there. It seems to me that it is you that cannot comprehend plain English.
If it went to court and the claimant won he would would not get more than
the open market value.

A fiver is insulting.


Far from it. It is a realistic statement of the likely worth of the

garment
on the open market.



If it went to (small claims) court and he won, your outlay most probably
would not be limited to the amount the court considered appropriate for
replacement of the damaged article and any consequential losses. The court
would probably consider adding the costs of bringing the action, attending
the court, etc. Add to that your own defence costs, including the value of
the time wasted, and possibly the adverse publicity springing from a
decision against you being reported, and the aggregate is the sum to be
compared with whatever it might cost to settle 'amicably', without conceding
liability.

Considering the way the courts have been developing 'duty of care', would
you be surprised if a court were to find that a party merrily slapping ink
on members of the public should reasonably have foreseen a risk of transfer
of the ink to clothing?




  #26   Report Post  
Old 08-09-2004, 07:31 PM
Rod
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 21:58:34 +0100, Sacha
wrote:


With respect to all other skills, how would amateur gardeners be in a
position to give you a definitive answer to such a question?


It won't stop 'em trying - just watch :~}

=================================================

Rod

Weed my email address to reply.
http://website.lineone.net/~rodcraddock/index.html
  #27   Report Post  
Old 08-09-2004, 07:37 PM
Peter Crosland
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If it went to (small claims) court and he won, your outlay most
probably would not be limited to the amount the court considered
appropriate for replacement of the damaged article and any
consequential losses. The court would probably consider adding the
costs of bringing the action, attending the court, etc. Add to that
your own defence costs, including the value of the time wasted, and
possibly the adverse publicity springing from a decision against you
being reported, and the aggregate is the sum to be compared with
whatever it might cost to settle 'amicably', without conceding
liability.


Highly improbable! De minimis comes to mind.


  #28   Report Post  
Old 08-09-2004, 07:56 PM
Sacha
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 8/9/04 18:31, in article ,
"Rod" wrote:

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 21:58:34 +0100, Sacha
wrote:


With respect to all other skills, how would amateur gardeners be in a
position to give you a definitive answer to such a question?


It won't stop 'em trying - just watch :~}

=================================================

I have been. And I'm right. ;-(
The OP's best bet is the CAB - not just for this event but for any that
follow. Find out the parameters of legal responsibility there and if need
be, consult a friendly lawyer. If this scheme operates for a charity, see
if a lawyer will agree to offer advice to that charity branch free of charge
in exchange for a 'blurb' on any programme or printed publicity. I've
managed to organise this in the past for a charity of which I was chairman
and the lawyer, who had strong and sympathetic views on legal aid, was a
star about giving us free advice for charity events.

This is an increasingly litigious age and the people who make it so are - I
hope - going to inhabit a special circle of hell. Slight exaggeration there
but the canceling of a pancake race for schoolchildren, the taking down of
hanging baskets in case someone gets hurt (they never have been) the threat
of felling chestnut trees in case someone gets hurt by a falling conker
(never happened, ever) etc. etc. makes me think that not only have I missed
making a fortune as a lawyer or a wimpy litigant, there must be many hoping
to emulate being employed by a modern day Aeschylus!

Above all, in terms of present and future events, do NOT take the advice of
net lawyers. Not. You have no idea of their credentials, many have an axe
to grind, many think they 'know' because they've made a thorough-going
nuisance of themselves (and probably utter idiots, too) I have known people
on the Internet claim to be doctors and lawyers (both qualis) who turned out
to be school assistants and others who have claimed to be Professors of
English who were car salesmen.
I cannot imagine anything more potentially damaging than believing such
specialised advice from the net. DON'T DO IT!
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

  #29   Report Post  
Old 08-09-2004, 08:15 PM
David Hill
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Nick said "As the cheapest decent shirt is nowadays over 20 quid, he may
have bought an up-market one at 50, ...."

So by implication I and I should think many others on this site have Never
had a decent shirt..........Balderdash
I also don't have Goochi, Kalvin Kline or any designer cloths But do have
Good cloths, just dont believe in paying double (or more) just foe a Name.

--
David Hill
Abacus nurseries
www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk




  #30   Report Post  
Old 08-09-2004, 08:59 PM
Peter Crosland
 
Posts: n/a
Default

This is an increasingly litigious age and the people who make it so
are - I hope - going to inhabit a special circle of hell. Slight
exaggeration there but the canceling of a pancake race for
schoolchildren, the taking down of hanging baskets in case someone
gets hurt (they never have been) the threat of felling chestnut trees
in case someone gets hurt by a falling conker (never happened, ever)
etc. etc. makes me think that not only have I missed making a
fortune as a lawyer or a wimpy litigant, there must be many hoping to
emulate being employed by a modern day Aeschylus!

Above all, in terms of present and future events, do NOT take the
advice of net lawyers. Not. You have no idea of their credentials,
many have an axe to grind, many think they 'know' because they've
made a thorough-going nuisance of themselves (and probably utter
idiots, too) I have known people on the Internet claim to be doctors
and lawyers (both qualis) who turned out to be school assistants and
others who have claimed to be Professors of English who were car
salesmen.
I cannot imagine anything more potentially damaging than believing
such specialised advice from the net. DON'T DO IT!


That is a very sweeping statement Sacha and somewhat cynical. Of course with
any advice given here it needs to be taken with considerable care and should
not be considered definitive. Having said that I agree that many of the
answers given have been littered with errors and omissions. That does not
mean to say that all the points are worthless. Are we to assume that all the
gardening answers are to be treated as perfect? There are plenty of dangers
in the garden if people take flawed advice!


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CLAIM YOUR TWO FREE UNIVERSAL STUDIOS TICKETS! CLAIM YOUR TWO FREE UNIVERSAL STUDIOS TICKETS! Edible Gardening 0 21-11-2004 12:04 AM
CLAIM YOUR TWO FREE UNIVERSAL STUDIOS TICKETS! CLAIM YOUR TWO FREE UNIVERSAL STUDIOS TICKETS! Orchids 0 21-11-2004 12:04 AM
CLAIM YOUR TWO FREE UNIVERSAL STUDIOS TICKETS! CLAIM YOUR TWO FREE UNIVERSAL STUDIOS TICKETS! Bonsai 0 21-11-2004 12:01 AM
offer:flower pot,Products including Ceramic Flower Pot,Imitate Porcelain Flower Pot,Wood Flower Pot,Stone Flower Pot,Imitate Stone Flower Pot,Hanging Flower Pot,Flower Pot Wall Hanging,Bonsai Pots,Root Carving&Hydroponics Pots [email protected] Texas 0 07-09-2004 07:55 PM
Horticultural Show insurance? Jim W United Kingdom 6 07-08-2003 10:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017