| |
In lugnet.loc.uk, Nick Goetz writes:
> I agree the lawyer route is defiantly not the way to go.
> > But you're right about some people perhaps wheeling lawyers in.
> >
> > If anyone is listening and contemplating that, I respectfully request
> > that you not.
I'm posting this late at night, so I'll try to be very careful about how I
frame the reply.
Taking advice from an American not to wheel in the lawyers I find a bit rich.
But then I see our system heading full-on into the same mistakes that the
American system makes (conditional fee arangements being the chief concern,
followed by a desire to sue anyone for anything).
But what I choose to do next is _entirely_ up to me. If I choose to take the
legal route, does that make me a bad trader? A bad loser? Or a consumer who
knows and is prepared to enforce his rights in a society dominated by
consumerism where the big companies carry most of the weight (and blame).
You'll have grave difficulties in finding someone who can say I haven't
honoured a deal.
Morality - well, it's for each of us to make his or her own value judgements.
I had to pay 85p a litre to fill my car up with petrol this morning (that's
over $5 per gallon) - anyone falling over themselves to express a moral view
on whether this is right?
I'll confess to being a little concerned about those ordering 10 or 20 copies
of particular sets. Whether those are at the big discount prices posted by
the Entertainer, or are OOP sets bought up from the UK by certain individuals
(usually stateside)preventing a "fair" distribution of the bounty seems
equally worrying to me - that's a value judgement too, but I won't be losing
sleep over what certain people may think of me for hoping to get a couple of
cheap shuttles when they were prepared to buy dozens of rare sets themselves
just a couple of weeks ago (blue hoppers, anyone?).
I disagree with much of the legal opinion given on this thread. Some of it
seems to be based on US or Canadian law, which clearly has no application
here. Legal advice, like medical advice, on the 'net is usually wrong, and
often dangerous. I could provide you with a _definative_ answer covering
contract law (including unilateral mistake), electronic commerce, misleading
price indications and the criminal law pertaining to the website etc etc,
given a day or two, but I have other, more pressing, matters to attend to at
the moment (anyone who would like chapter and verse on "theft by finding"
versus "abandonment" when it comes to wallets could email me if they really
want to know the way it would be called here in England & Wales - that's far
too easy to take more than 10 minutes work).
WHere I go from here is MODB. And that of the Entertainer, of course.
A blood-sucking leech
Although we don't actually exist as such on this side of the ocean.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
163 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
