Kay wrote:
:: 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?
::
Not at all, if you don't want an ink stamp on your hand, then you are
perfectly able to walk away without one, it *was* *not* forced on him - he
accepted it and then *he* got the ink onto his own shirt.


:: 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.

Or you could choose not to have the stamp in the first place?
- If you did *choose* to have the ink stamped onto your hand, you have then
accepted responsibility for that ink...how far can this idiotic compensation
culture go? - MacDonalds now have to have 'caution! contents may be hot'
stamped on their apple pies to prevent the permanently baffled from
thrusting molten apples down their throats!!! - 99.9% of people know it's
hot, as do the other 0.01%, but if it wasn't explained to them, they would
put in a claim for 'tongue trauma' - it's pathetic.

On 9/9/04 14:27, in article , "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

Neither I, nor anyone else involved in the
discussion, has made any claim to have a formal legal qualification.
That does not mean to say that none of us are ignorant of the law.


And you still fail to give your qualifications or the name of the
legal firm for which you work as a lawyer.

Have you actually read the paragraph above? It does not appear so!

I quote

"Neither I, nor anyone else involved in the discussion, has made any claim
to have a formal legal qualification."

snip

You appear to be someone who likes to argue for the sake of arguing, and I'm
really not interested in that nonsense.
I too have experience of the law in varying, personal degrees, including
lawyers in my family but do not think it gives me the necessary clout to
advise people on legal matters. That is why, knowing that when this sort of
question is asked, umpteen 'experts' come out of the woodwork with bad
advice and conflicting opinions, confusing the OP, I suggested that this one
ignores people like you. I still do. In fact, given your recent posts, I
would word that recommendation even more strongly.
As to peoples' opinions on gardening, it is a gardening group and I know
quite a few of the regulars personally. I don't know any - personally - who
pretend to be legal experts.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

On 9/9/04 14:44, in article ,
"BAC" wrote:

snip

However, I haven't noticed anybody offering legal advice in this case,
merely practical observations on how to deal with circumstances which might
give rise to a claim for compensation.


Admission of responsibility has been suggested and that is possibly not a
wise route to follow, bearing future such shows in mind, because this might
not be a one off. That is why CAB or a lawyer could give a simple answer,
putting the matter to rest, once and for all and I really cannot see why
that idea is so hurtful to all the 'would-be' lawyers that flock to these
queries.
At present, this is a small and insignificant claim but if the claimant
isn't genuine but is 'trying it on' and succeeds and tells others of his ilk
that he has succeeded, then future years could see an increase in those
making such claims. And that would be to the detriment of the organisers of
the show, especially if they have to then use their public liability
insurance. That is why I suggested the very simple idea of contacting a
body qualified to give a simple but definitive answer, rather than relying
on a gardening group to provide it.
We have to carry large public liability insurance here as do others, I'm
sure. But if I wanted advice on how to use it/not use it/avoid future
occurrences, I probably wouldn't seek it here.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
What's improbable, that he might win, or that, if he did, costs might
be awarded, or that there might be adverse publicity, or that the
time spent in defending the case might be significant, or what?

In the small claims court it is not normal to get costs awarded. Small
claims actions are not normally reported anyway. Why not do some research
yourself?



How strange, I have personal experience of being awarded costs/expenses
following a small claims court case which I 'won'. The judge asked me if I
wished to claim any, it wasn't my idea. I know small claims court cases are
not normally covered by the local press, but they can still publish the
outcome if it is brought to their attention by a successful party wishing to
twist the knife, and if the story strikes them as interesting.

As for doing some research myself, that is exactly what I was doing,
researching what you meant by your 'improbable' remark, from the only source
able to shed light on it, i.e. you.

You appear to be someone who likes to argue for the sake of arguing,
and I'm really not interested in that nonsense.

Far from it but I am not going let someone make stupid and unfounded remarks
such as you have done without them being challenged. Your suggesteed course
of action is typical of the paranoia over what is a minor incident tht
nobody with any common sense would dream of litigating. My original reply
was a suggestion of a commonsense solution. You on the other hand think it
is approriate to run to lawyers at the slightest excuse.

On 9/9/04 18:53, in article , "BAC"
wrote:


"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
What's improbable, that he might win, or that, if he did, costs might
be awarded, or that there might be adverse publicity, or that the
time spent in defending the case might be significant, or what?

In the small claims court it is not normal to get costs awarded. Small
claims actions are not normally reported anyway. Why not do some research
yourself?



How strange, I have personal experience of being awarded costs/expenses
following a small claims court case which I 'won'. The judge asked me if I
wished to claim any, it wasn't my idea. I know small claims court cases are
not normally covered by the local press, but they can still publish the
outcome if it is brought to their attention by a successful party wishing to
twist the knife, and if the story strikes them as interesting.

As for doing some research myself, that is exactly what I was doing,
researching what you meant by your 'improbable' remark, from the only source
able to shed light on it, i.e. you.



Can't resist it: I rest my case. ;-))
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

On 9/9/04 19:16, in article , "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

You appear to be someone who likes to argue for the sake of arguing,
and I'm really not interested in that nonsense.

Far from it but I am not going let someone make stupid and unfounded remarks
such as you have done without them being challenged. Your suggesteed course
of action is typical of the paranoia over what is a minor incident tht
nobody with any common sense would dream of litigating. My original reply
was a suggestion of a commonsense solution. You on the other hand think it
is approriate to run to lawyers at the slightest excuse.


Your first reply was a flat statement of fact for which you hold no apparent
qualifications. You wrote:

"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."

You are irresponsible. You do NOT know this because you do not know the full
circumstances. If you do, tell us how you know it.
Your knowledge of the law in these matters is self-taught, self-limited and
totally unreliable, or so it would seem. It is not definitive of the many
parameters that can surround a legal issue nor is it reliable and is
therefore, dangerous to anyone looking for help in the wrong place, such as
this group.

You are *precisely* what the OP should avoid and without knowing you or
having read any of your posts that I am aware of, are one of those types I
had in mind when I posted my first response in this thread.

I have suggested seeking advice only. If you are unaware of that because
you do not read carefully, then you are not a good person from whom to seek
advice. If there is any commonsense in your answer above, I am unable to
see it because you are talking from a position of ignorance.

If you are not, post your legal qualifications and the name of the legal
firm for whom you work and of course, your area of legal expertise. If it
is, for example, conveyancing, you might not be the best person to help.
Assuming you're a lawyer, of course.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

"Sacha" wrote in message
k...
On 9/9/04 14:44, in article
,
"BAC" wrote:

snip

However, I haven't noticed anybody offering legal advice in this case,
merely practical observations on how to deal with circumstances which
might
give rise to a claim for compensation.


Admission of responsibility has been suggested and that is possibly not a
wise route to follow, bearing future such shows in mind, because this
might
not be a one off.

I must have missed that, since I can't recall anyone suggesting admission of
responsiblity. People suggested paying him off, without admission of
liability, which is quite different.

That is why CAB or a lawyer could give a simple answer,
putting the matter to rest, once and for all and I really cannot see why
that idea is so hurtful to all the 'would-be' lawyers that flock to these
queries.

No, with respect, the lawyer consulted could not put the matter to rest,
once and for all, all he/she could do is give his/her opinion and advice,
which would not necessarily be accepted by or be binding on the other party.
That is what the courts are for. Think of all the civil actions going before
the courts, many of them with lawyers acting for both sides, all of whom
have advised their clients. I am dealing with a case at the moment where my
client has obtained Counsel's Opinion, at no inconsiderable cost, but will
the 'other side' accept it - no chance.

At present, this is a small and insignificant claim but if the claimant
isn't genuine but is 'trying it on' and succeeds and tells others of his
ilk
that he has succeeded, then future years could see an increase in those
making such claims.

Assuming nothing done in the meantime to remove/reduce the opportunity for
future similar claims.

And that would be to the detriment of the organisers of
the show, especially if they have to then use their public liability
insurance. That is why I suggested the very simple idea of contacting a
body qualified to give a simple but definitive answer, rather than relying
on a gardening group to provide it.
We have to carry large public liability insurance here as do others, I'm
sure. But if I wanted advice on how to use it/not use it/avoid future
occurrences, I probably wouldn't seek it here.

Neither would I - if you recall, my first advice was to consult the
insurers, if unsure of the circumstances in which the policy requires
notification of circumstances which might give rise to a claim. All the
other stuff, really, is mere speculation, since there must be an insurance
policy involved, given the title of the subject of the thread, and it is
important to comply with policy conditions or cover might be prejudiced.
Loss adjustors exist to minimise the *insurers* outlay.

As I said before, the first place to look is in the terms of the insurance
policy, which will probably include requirements to be followed in the
notification of claims or potential claims, and, if in doubt, ask the
insurers for clarification.

If, and only if, it turns out you're not covered or because of the likely
quantum, the insurers are happy for you to handle it on your own (subject to
their approval), would you need to take any action yourself.

I expect the OP asked the question here because he thought other people
might have had to face potential insurance claims, so could share their
experiences with him, not because he thought we were all closet QCs.

In article ,
Sacha wrote:

A lot that I agree with.

I am still waiting to be told where I can buy decent shirts (that
fit me, natch) new for a tenner or very slightly worn for a fiver.
If anyone were to provide that information, I would definitely
buy half a dozen. Oh, that includes travel costs, of course.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

I am still waiting to be told where I can buy decent shirts (that
fit me, natch) new for a tenner or very slightly worn for a fiver.
If anyone were to provide that information, I would definitely
buy half a dozen. Oh, that includes travel costs, of course.

I have had some bargains on e.bay, have a look you never know what you
will find :-)

kate

Your first reply was a flat statement of fact for which you hold no
apparent qualifications. You wrote:

"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."

The reply is a common sense one that is both accurate and appropriate. Yours
have simply shown a remarkable degree of stupidity and simply become a
series of personal attacks based on fantasy and you inability to read plain
English and comprehend it. Why should anyone consider your advice any better
than that given by others? Your own words show just amply illustrate your
hypocrisy and bigiotry, not to mention your contempt for anyone who
disagrees with you.

How strange, I have personal experience of being awarded
costs/expenses following a small claims court case which I 'won'. The
judge asked me if I wished to claim any, it wasn't my idea. I know
small claims court cases are not normally covered by the local press,
but they can still publish the outcome if it is brought to their
attention by a successful party wishing to twist the knife, and if
the story strikes them as interesting.

As for doing some research myself, that is exactly what I was doing,
researching what you meant by your 'improbable' remark, from the only
source able to shed light on it, i.e. you.

Take a look here for a detailed explanation of when costs may be allowed.
Note the this is discretionary not mandatory in many cases. The site also
gives a very useful explanation about small claims.

In article ,
Kate Morgan wrote:

I am still waiting to be told where I can buy decent shirts (that
fit me, natch) new for a tenner or very slightly worn for a fiver.
If anyone were to provide that information, I would definitely
buy half a dozen. Oh, that includes travel costs, of course.

I have had some bargains on e.bay, have a look you never know what you
will find :-)

Well, excluding the time to do that and the connexion costs (small),
you have to allow for the probability of being sold a pup. At a
wild guess, I would estimate that 50% of items sold that way are
unsatisfactory, so I would halve the price I was prepared to pay :-)

But think about it. If you said to someone complaining about a
damaged shirt "I will give you a fiver, because you can get one
second-hand on Ebay for that", what are the chances of them taking
offence?

Not merely will that make them more likely to pursue legal action,
if a judge agrees that the offer is offensive, any "without
prejudice" becomes void. That is why I said that the WORST thing
was to make the person an insulting offer, such as a fiver (at
least without checking the shirt).

Now, if I were wearing my gardening clothes, not merely would an
offer of a quid be excessive, I almost certainly wouldn't notice
a bit of ink :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Peter Crosland wrote:
:: Take a look here for a detailed explanation of when costs may be
:: allowed.

Where?

Phil L wrote:
Peter Crosland wrote:
Take a look here for a detailed explanation of when costs may be
allowed.

Where?

Mea culpa! Apologies. Here is the link.

http://www.compactlaw.co.uk/freeinfo...laims/smc.html