Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Sacha wrote: I have been. And I'm right. ;-( You are indeed. 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. ... And, for heaven's sake, do NOT make an insulting offer! Better no offer at all than that - it will merely increase the risk of the claimant getting annoyed and following the matter through. Also, the "without prejudice" exemption is conditional. If it is used inappropriately (and there is an incredible amount of legal gobbledegook about what that means), it is not merely void, the contents of the communication can be used as evidence against the person who wrote it. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Victoria Clare wrote: Sacha wrote in news:BD651C93.3221% : Are you a lawyer, qualified to give such advice? Sacha has a point. Even lawyers may not be qualified to advise: lawyers come in lots of flavours, most of them specialists in a particular area. When I set up my small company, a qualified practicing lawyer who usually deals with rather larger companies gave me incorrect information about Data Protection Act registration. (At least, I'm assuming he was wrong, as the govt helpline and website both said he was. I'm not sure how they decide these things, but I'm hoping that some sort of duel inside a big wire cage may be involved. With spears or something. ;-) ) As someone who has had to become a partial expert as part of my job, I am qualified to say that few lawyers have a clue what it means, the official 'clarifications' conflict with it, the successive Data Registrars have expressed bafflement and frustration over its wording, there was one House of Lords case where 2 out of 3 judges interpreted it to mean the converse of what the English said (using the 'intent of Parliament' concept) and there is at least one circumstance where it creates a criminal offence but explicitly forbids anyone to prosecute the culprit. The last two apply to the old Act - I would need to recheck for the current one. Beyond that, it is doubtless a marvel of modern legislation. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
On 8/9/04 20:59, in article , "Nick
Maclaren" wrote: In article , Sacha wrote: I have been. And I'm right. ;-( You are indeed. 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. ... And, for heaven's sake, do NOT make an insulting offer! snip Make NO offer, I think, don't you? Offers mean negotiations are opened and without a lawyer's advice that shouldn't occur. Make no offer in case it admits responsibility. Talk to the CAB or a lawyer. Talk to the CAB - find a friendly freebie lawyer. This is not just over this blasted shirt, of course but all future events the OP plans. And I cannot repeat too often - except for those who don't like it - do not take advice of this nature over the Internet unless it is backed up with a name, a company name and a telephone number, all of which imply a willingness to take responsibility for the professional advice proffered. *Everyone's* a potential expert in cyberspace! -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon (remove the weeds to email me) |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Dear oh dear. Touched a nerve have I? What I was emphasising was to not
over-react to what is essentially, in legal terms, a trivial matter that nobody with a reasonable amount of common sense would dream of litigating. On the one hand you suggest a totally over the top reaction of going to the CAB or a solicitor over a matter that should have been dealt without the need for recourse to either. 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. You on the other hand have made wild assumptions without any basis for them at all. Furthermore you seem to think you are the only one entitled to an opinion and that anybody else's opinion is worthless. More than a bit arrogant and hypocritical I would say. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Janet Baraclough.
.. writes The message from Kay contains these words: 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? Whenever I've had a hand stamp, it's been on the back of the left hand. Not a part that comes into contact with clothing much, IME. Easy to rub off on to shirt cuffs. And dirty shirt cuffs look pretty slummy - an indelible stain on a shirt cuff would make it unwearable for smart use. 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. If it's non-permanent, washable and easy to remove from skin, it's likely to be the same on fabric ? One would have thought so. -- Kay "Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river" |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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? Don't people read the thread. The stamp on the back of the hand was for Pass out, not for entry, for that you would have your ticket. -- David Hill Abacus nurseries www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim W" wrote in message news:1gjtgtx.12ap5azxsi086N%00senetnospamtodayta@m acunlimited.net... Ken Richardson wrote: 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. Thanks. 1) Has he come back with the shirt.. eg have you seen the damage.. (suspicious aren't I but it could be a variation of the 'your waiter damaged my suit in the restaurant' scam of old.. 2) Have you contacted your insurance company.. Believe it or not they do sometimes give advice at no charge.. Jim Also has the complainant actually asked for "Compensation" or simply pointed out to the organisers of the show that a better system might be more appropriate next time they run an event? He may only be alerting them to a possible problem. Joe |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
On 8/9/04 22:32, in article , "Peter Crosland"
wrote: Dear oh dear. Touched a nerve have I? I'd say the boot is on the other foot, judging by your reaction. What I was emphasising was to not over-react to what is essentially, in legal terms, a trivial matter that nobody with a reasonable amount of common sense would dream of litigating. On the one hand you suggest a totally over the top reaction of going to the CAB or a solicitor over a matter that should have been dealt without the need for recourse to either. Read what I wrote - they need to know where they stand in the light of future events, too. 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. You on the other hand have made wild assumptions without any basis for them at all. Furthermore you seem to think you are the only one entitled to an opinion and that anybody else's opinion is worthless. More than a bit arrogant and hypocritical I would say. And you still fail to give your qualifications or the name of the legal firm for which you work as a lawyer. I'd say handing out legal advice without proof that you're qualified to do so is more than arrogant, it's potentially dangerous for anyone who might naively act upon it. Free advice from barrackroom lawyers is usually worth exactly what you pay for it. -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon (remove the weeds to email me) |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
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." I have never claimed to have any major legal qualification though I do have some forty years experience of dealing with a wide variety of legal problems all but one of which I have been able to resolve successfully without recourse to professional help. That includes two legal actions against the Inland Revenue and a private prosecution for careless driving against someone. In all the other cases it was possible to resolve matters informally. Just for the record I did study law to A level and HNC level but I don't claim to know it all, but the matter under discussion really is so trivial that it should not even be considered as matter for litigation. Don't take my word for it but almost any lawyer will tell that litigation should be the very last resort. Unfortunately the common attitude to day is sue first and consider later. It seems to be entirely a product of your imagination that any of the people who reply have are practicing lawyers. You make the assumption that only those in legal practice or with a formal legal qualifications have any knowledge of the law. If you go to the CAB you will almost certainly be advised in the first instance by someone who does not have a formal legal qualification but you are quite happy to recommend people go their. Furthermore you had the effrontery to pour scorn on other people's advice even before it had been given. I don't seem to remember you querying the credentials of the many people giving advice on gardening. That seems somewhat bigoted and hypocritical to me. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"Sacha" wrote in message k... On 8/9/04 22:32, in article , "Peter Crosland" wrote: snip I'd say handing out legal advice without proof that you're qualified to do so is more than arrogant, it's potentially dangerous for anyone who might naively act upon it. Free advice from barrackroom lawyers is usually worth exactly what you pay for it. If a person does hold him or herself out to be a lawyer, and provides legal advice, the courts have held that he/she owes the same duty of care to the recipient of the advice as would a qualified lawyer. Hence it is probably equally risky for a barrack room lawyer to dispense free legal advice as it is for the recipient to follow it. 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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
CLAIM YOUR TWO FREE UNIVERSAL STUDIOS TICKETS! | Edible Gardening | |||
CLAIM YOUR TWO FREE UNIVERSAL STUDIOS TICKETS! | Orchids | |||
CLAIM YOUR TWO FREE UNIVERSAL STUDIOS TICKETS! | Bonsai | |||
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 | Texas | |||
Horticultural Show insurance? | United Kingdom |