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| the offer can be withdrawn if he is stupid enought to go to court.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.

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.

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.

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.

"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?

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.

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
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.



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?

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

In article ,
David Hill wrote:
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

Quite a lot of people probably never have. I have never worn an
expensive or 'designer' shirt in my life. I should appreciate the
benefit of your wisdom in finding where to buy shirts, as my normal
source (Marks and Sparks) is getting much less reliable.

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.

OK. From where?

I don't mind too much what the cloth is, cotton, linen, any of the
other 'shirt grade' natural fibres, but I gave up wearing plastic
some time ago on the grounds of its unbreathability in the poorly
ventilated office I work in, and the amount of unnecessary sweating
it causes when I need to even walk fast in hot weather.

Over to you.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.