A Law Unto Themselves?

[Neil]

Originally Posted by jambutty

Or more likely you like a few others can’t stand someone who speaks his mind and worst still from your viewpoint he sticks by his opinion and won’t be swayed by verbal bullying. Some people on here assume that everyone should think like they do and when someone comes along who thinks for himself they get aggravated.

What I don't like about you is that even when you have been proven to be wrong you don't have a strong enough character to hold up your hand and admint it.

It has nothing to do with verbal bullying.

I like a person who speaks his mind and is not afraid of what others might think, I do the same often. The difference between us is that I know when to admit I am wrong , you don't.

Yes you do stick by your viewpoint, you are impossible to change on that. Is that a good quality in a person? I don't think it is. If I say something that is wrong, which often happens, I am the first to admit I was wrong. That is a good quality within my character, I have others but don't like to brag.

I really do hope that not everyone thinks the same way as I do. That would be boring don't you think? They would probably need therapy as well

[BLACKBURN RAVER]

get off the guys back ffs....his opinions differ from the click, so what ???

your like chuffin vultures you lot...

[Eric]

Originally Posted by BLACKBURN RAVER

get off the guys back ffs....his opinions differ from the click, so what ???

your like chuffin vultures you lot...

Somehow, I don't think JB resents the cut and thrust of argument. He's a big boy, he has opinions, and he is not afraid of voicing them. More power to him.

[LancYorkYankee]

And another positive; jambutty has surpassed the 2000 post count (and no, not only in this thread you jolly jokers!).

Heck, after reading through all that I had to find something to comment on!

Brian

[WillowTheWhisp]

Originally Posted by BLACKBURN RAVER

get off the guys back ffs....his opinions differ from the click, so what ???

your like chuffin vultures you lot...

It's not a case of opinions. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and I would defend anyone's right to their own opinion whether I agreed with it or not.

This however, is about facts and the fact is that what Jambutty claimed was a fact was in fact an erroneous interpretation of what he perceived to be the facts.

Having had this pointed out to him by numerous people he still stubbornly persists in insisting that everyone else is wrong and he is right.

If he had been able to prove me wrong I would have graciously admitted my mistake - something he seems unable to do.

[BLACKBURN RAVER]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

It's not a case of opinions. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and I would defend anyone's right to their own opinion whether I agreed with it or not.

This however, is about facts and the fact is that what Jambutty claimed was a fact was in fact an erroneous interpretation of what he perceived to be the facts.

Having had this pointed out to him by numerous people he still stubbornly persists in insisting that everyone else is wrong and he is right.

If he had been able to prove me wrong I would have graciously admitted my mistake - something he seems unable to do.

but one FACT is NONE of you lot saw that poster he claimed to have seen,you all jumped on his back and you presumed you knew the poster in question, but that was proved to be incorrect, so where is YOUR appology ?...

[panther]

now now children, stop the fighting tut.gifanyone would think ya all under 18


now all come together and give a big hug!!
bighug.gifbighug.gifbighug.gifbighug.gifbighug.gif

[entwisi]

I also appreciate that a vendor is under no obligation to sell his wares if the vendor chooses not to do so. But once a customer has indicated that he wants to buy an item and has offered the money to complete the sale, the vendor must then complete the transaction.

Or has that changed too?

Never changed but it is not the case. Until the vendor accepts money no contract exists. Therefore no contract, no legal standing on either side. Equally you can withdraw your offer of money at any point up to the point of a contract being in place.

e.g.

I come to buy a car from you. I look around said car and think its wonderful, I verbally offer (lets imagine a real value) £2000. you accept but no money changes hands. I go off to get a loan, its refused, You have no contract with me so I can pull out. or say its agreed but I find another car better suited for less, again I can pull out as no contract is in place. Equally, you agree a price with me, then 10 minutes later someone turns up and offers £3K. You are quite in your rights legally to take that money. (Morally you stink but hey thats not what we are discussing here).

Equally with ASDA, they put things on the shelf and you are 'invited to treat'. Untill they take your money from you they can pull out at any time without reason. Even after money has changed hands, if it can be proven by ASDA that the price was erroneous and it is clearly an error they can cancel teh contract(it is up to them to prove that the purchaser would have 'known' teh price was erroneous but thats a different discussion again).

e.g. a website advertises an item and instead of it being £999.00 its incorrectly priced at £9.99. even if they have taken your order, accepted money and provided a receipt they can cancel the contract as it is clearly an error. In a relatively recent case Kodak advertised a camera which retailed at that time at £249 for £99. Lots of people bought one(me included). Kodak had taken our money in that they had provided an email saying this is your receipt. The website had also done a credit 'hold' on our debit/credit cards. 2 days later they sent an email saying it wouldn't be honoured. however when pressed in law the reasoning was that this was a model that was a)due for replacement in 2 months (end of line) b) had reported battery life issues and c) had one or 2 spuriously bad reviews it was deemd that teh price could legitimately considered a 'normal' discount in order to clear stocks of an unpopular model. Kodak capitulated before it went to court as they didn't want a precedent to be set. The key things taht won for teh consumers was that we had a 'contract' as Kodak had accepted our money by processing the payments, had given a receipt and as described above it was deemed a fair bargain.

[blazey]

Originally Posted by jambutty

Because I cannot remember his name. Satisfied?

But you still read what I write and pass comment. So who is the fool?

When you are big enough, old enough and ugly enough you can tell me to shut up. Until that day just go away and pick up your dummy that you have spit out and stick it back in your gob.

It just annoys me that people can't be bothered to actually CHECK the law before they mouth off about what they THINK is the law.

And I dont think I will ever be as equally big, ugly or old as you, but at least I know I will always be more intelligent than you.

Why dont you just get over the fact that asda can sell or refuse to sell their product to whoever they want.

Forget about using houses as example, use pedigree dog breeders. If a dog breeder invites you to his house to view the dogs, and implies he is willing sell to you there and then, but upon your visit realises you are not a suitable owner for whatever reason, maybe for example the dog doesn't like cats and you own a cat, who knows, whatever reason, then he simply has the right to send you away. There is no law stating that he must accept your money when they offer to buy something that you have put up for sale.

You want a real example? Here is the case that counters what you are trying to argue. When you have finished reading it hopefully you will be enlightened to the position of the law and stop being a windbag as Ianto would put it.

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd

Queen's Bench Division
16 July 1952

Subject: Sale of Goods
Keywords: Criminal liability; Offer and acceptance; Pharmacists; Poisons
Summary: sale by or under supervision of registered pharmacist
Abstract: It is a well-established principle that the mere fact that a shop-keeper exposes goods which indicate to the public that he is willing to treat does not amount to an offer to sell. The defendants had adopted a "self-service" system in their shop, which consisted in allowing persons who resorted to the shop to go to shelves where goods were exposed for sale and marked with the price. They took the article required and went to the cash desk, where the cashier or assistant saw the article, stated the price, and took the money. In one of their departments there were on certain shelves ointments and drugs coming within Part I of the Poisons List. Before any person could leave with what he had bought in that department he had to pass the scrutiny and supervision of a qualified pharmacist. The question for the opinion of the court was whether each sale was effected in accordance with the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933 s.18(1)(a)(iii) which provides that the sale of any poison included in Part I of the Poisons List shall not be lawful, unless "the sale is effected by, or under the supervision of, a registered pharmacist." Held, the mere fact that a customer picked up a bottle of medicine from a shelf did not amount to an acceptance of an offer to sell, but was an offer by the customer to buy; there was no sale until the buyer's offer to buy was accepted by the acceptance of the purchase price, and that took place under the supervision of a pharmacist; therefore, there should be judgment for the defendants.

[entwisi]

heh, not often that I agree with Blazey!

[blazey]

Originally Posted by entwisi

heh, not often that I agree with Blazey!

Well when I sit in the library constantly and I have an extensive case database at my fingers lol I can find the correct principle of law quite easily, and I also happen to be studying contract law at the moment lol my assignments on it for over xmas, its all i have time to actually read at the moment!

And there is nothing worse than being unclear on the correct principle of law. Dont want jambutty showing himself up in asda when he has a hissy fit over a sign, especially when in appearance he seems to be at least double the age restriction they apply to alcohol sales anyway.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Originally Posted by BLACKBURN RAVER

but one FACT is NONE of you lot saw that poster he claimed to have seen,you all jumped on his back and you presumed you knew the poster in question, but that was proved to be incorrect, so where is YOUR appology ?...

No, we didn't see the poster, notice or whatever it is that Jambutty claims to have seen and that is half the problem.

Yes, I agree that I did make an assumption that he had possibly misunderstood the "Challenge 21" posters which exist all over the place and are a national scheme. That was why I had wanted to see these signs for myself to be sure that I knew what he was referring to.

I wasn't able to go earlier as I have been full of a cold but I did intend to go and look at the Asda in question tomorrow, when I will be in Blackburn for another reason, but he has since informed us that they have been removed.

Now as there is nothing to look at I would have just let the whole thing go but seeing as how you are prolonging the saga by insisting that we now all owe Jambutty an apology I have just phoned Asda at Grimshaw park in order to ascertain exactly what these signs looked like and clarify exactly what they did say, straight from the horses mouth so to speak.

The reaction from Asda was one of utter bewilderment. The only signs/posters/notices that Asda at Grimshaw park have ever used I am told are the common "Challenge 21" posters with which we are all familiar (and if you're not then I suggest you check out my previous posts) and which are all over the place in supermarkets and off licences. When I told them that no, I wasn't meaning those posters I was meaning the little notices at the checkouts which were facing the cashiers and which have recently been removed, I was told that there have never been any such little notices, that nothing has been recently removed and that the only signs or posters regarding the sale of alcohol are the ones which say that if you look under 21 you will be asked to prove that you are over 18 before you can buy booze.

Now as Jambutty brought up this saga the onus really is on him to prove that Asda has or had a policy of refusing to sell alcohol to people under 21 because according to what they've just told me they don't and never have done. It has always been the legal age of 18 which is the requirement in their store.

[blazey]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

No, we didn't see the poster, notice or whatever it is that Jambutty claims to have seen and that is half the problem.

Yes, I agree that I did make an assumption that he had possibly misunderstood the "Challenge 21" posters which exist all over the place and are a national scheme. That was why I had wanted to see these signs for myself to be sure that I knew what he was referring to.

I wasn't able to go earlier as I have been full of a cold but I did intend to go and look at the Asda in question tomorrow, when I will be in Blackburn for another reason, but he has since informed us that they have been removed.

Now as there is nothing to look at I would have just let the whole thing go but seeing as how you are prolonging the saga by insisting that we now all owe Jambutty and apology I have just phoned Asda at Grimshaw park in order to ascertain exactly what these signs looked like and clarify exactly what they did say, straight from the horses mouth so to speak.

The reaction from Asda was one of utter bewilderment. The only signs/posters/notices that Asda at Grimshaw park have ever used I am told are the common "Challenge 21" posters with which we are all familiar (and if you're not then I suggest you check out my previous posts) and which are all over the place in supermarkets and off licences. When I told them that no, I wasn't meaning those posters I was meaning the little notices at the checkouts which were facing the cashiers and which have recently been removed I was told that there have never been any such little notices, that nothing has been recently removed and that the only signs or posters regarding the sale of alcohol are the ones which say that if you look under 21 you will be asked to prove that you are over 18 before you can buy booze.

Now as Jambutty brought up this saga the onus really is on him to prove that Asda refuse to sell alcohol to people under 21 because according to what they've just told me they don't and never have done. It has always been the legal age of 18 which is the requirement in their store.

Even if their requirement was 21 years of age, I think its important to point out that Entwisti was correct and it was unfair of people to be nasty to him and criticise him in such a harsh way.

Either way, it doesnt even matter to most people on the forum anyway as most people are over that age, and can buy alcohol regardless

[WillowTheWhisp]

Yes Blazey, I agree with you there.

Perhaps you could also clarify for me something which I was told regarding the manner in which a person chooses to pay. If for instance someone decided to pay for their shopping with bags of 2p pieces they can be refused and no amount of insistence that they are legal tender can force the shopkeeper to accept them.

[MargaretR]

Wikepedia quote -
"In the 19th century, gold coins were legal tender to any amount, silver coins were not legal tender for sums over 2 pounds, nor bronze for sums over 1 shilling.

This provision was retained in revised form at the introduction of decimal currency, and the Coinage Act 1971 laid down that coins denominated above 10 pence became legal tender for payment not exceeding 10 pounds, coins denominated not more than 10 pence became legal tender for payment not exceeding 5 pounds, and bronze coins became legal tender for payment not exceeding 20 pence."