One for the legal eagles - forcing the sale of a jointly owned house

[MNW67]

what did you get? you haven't said.

I got a 2:1, which was a very good degree forty odd years ago. Firsts were extremely rare. You still haven't explained why you never seem to understand even the basics of law.

 

[motorbiking]

I got a 2:1, which was a very good degree forty odd years ago. Firsts were extremely rare.

as they were when I got mine. minus the 2: obviously.

You still haven't explained why you never seem to understand even the basics of law.

because its a fallacy that you made up..

and now you've run a couple of pages of nonsense that is completely irrelevant to the OPs predicament, which I would politely remind you appears to a be a real person with a real problem.

 

[Deleted member 317777]

OMG!!!

Estoppel is a beautiful concept. It allows the courts to use the principle of equity to mitigate the harshness of the law where somebody has acted to their detriment based on the lies of the other party. That's probably why I like it. It's about being nice!

Ok, but I meant a thread has been ruined by petty meaningless arguments “again”

You’re replying to @securespark iirc. So largely irrelevant.

It’s just another pi55ing competition.

 

[MNW67]

as they were when I got mine. minus the 2: obviously.

because its a fallacy that you made up..

and now you've run a couple of pages of nonsense that is completely irrelevant to the OPs predicament, which I would politely remind you appears to a be a real person with a real problem.

It is funny to see how much you have forgotten. Or maybe you never actually went on to use the law in your work. But as far as I am concerned, anyone who doesn't seem to realise that jointly held property is automatically held on trust, who thinks you can get 14 years in prison for wearing a T-shirt saying "I support PA", and who doesn't accept that Parliament is Supreme, is hopeless at even the most fundamental and basic law.

 

[MNW67]

Ok, but I meant a thread has been ruined by petty meaningless arguments “again”

You’re replying to @securespark iirc. So largely irrelevant.

It’s just another pi55ing competition.

I didn't ask MBK to stick his nose in. But this is what happens when he does. He lies, conflates, deflects and ends up talking gibberish. All to cover the fact that he doesn't really know anything. Anyway, two pages is nothing. Remember, this is the man who spent a hundred pages arguing over the meaning of the word "approved", to cover up that he had misunderstood the basics of abortion law in the UK.

 

[Deleted member 317777]

I wonder whether Foakes vs Beer applies.

I didn't ask MBK to stick his nose in. But this is what happens when he does. He lies, conflates, deflects and ends up talking gibberish. All to cover the fact that he doesn't really know anything. Anyway, two pages is nothing. Remember, this is the man who spent a hundred pages arguing over the meaning of the word "approved", to cover up that he had misunderstood the basics of abortion law in the UK.

It mainly starts there, or not, depends.

But MBK always puts you on the back foot.

It wouldn’t go on for 10’s of pages without someone to argue with.

Mainly you imho.

 

[MNW67]

But MBK always puts you on the back foot.

He is very good at conning people. Even when he is talking gibberish. Most people on here simply don't have the knowledge to see through him.

But when you do, you come to realise that he talks a lot, but actually says very little. Often, it feels like I am having a discussion with a child.

And with respect, you have admitted before that you have no idea what these conversations are about. So, I don't think there is any way for you to judge the merits.

 

[motorbiking]

He is very good at conning people. Even when he is talking gibberish. Most people on here simply don't have the knowledge to see through him.

But when you do, you come to realise that he talks a lot, but actually says very little. Often, it feels like I am having a discussion with a child.

And with respect, you have admitted before that you have no idea what these conversations are about. So, I don't think there is any way for you to judge the merits.

It's odd that you didn't seem to understand the impact of promissory estoppel on Foakes vs Beer

 

[Andydevon]

So one knob who thinks he knows what he is talking about against MBK who actually does. That going to end well for you isn't it.

 

[MNW67]

It's odd that you didn't seem to understand the impact of promissory estoppel on Foakes vs Beer

I'm the one who told you about it, you numpty. You had never even heard of it. Your position has changed completely throughout this discussion. But you are still trying to con people.

You started by saying Foakes v Beer was nothing to do with part payment.

Even though it has been the leading authority on part payment for almost 150 years.

Then you agreed with me that it was about part payment. But you started arguing that in mortgage shortfall cases it was all about consideration.

I pointed out that in mortgage shortfall cases, it couldn't be about consideration. But that it might be down to promissory estoppel. Something you had clearly never heard of.

Now, you are trying to make out that the whole promissory estoppel argument was yours.

This is what you do. You are nothing but a conman.

 

[Deleted member 317777]

And with respect, you have admitted before that you have no idea what these conversations are about. So, I don't think there is any way for you to judge the merits.

You might be right there. But I’d say most long, repetitive, unnecessary arguments, you’re part of. Or Start, keep going.

The need for a win is almost pathetic. I mean you, not MBK for clarity.

Have a day off.

 

[Deleted member 317777]

I'm the one who told you about it, you numpty. You had never even heard of it. Your position has changed completely throughout this discussion. But you are still trying to con people.

You started by saying Foakes v Beer was nothing to do with part payment.

Even though it has been the leading authority on part payment for almost 150 years.

Then you agreed with me that it was about part payment. But you started arguing that in mortgage shortfall cases it was all about consideration.

I pointed out that in mortgage shortfall cases, it couldn't be about consideration. But that it might be down to promissory estoppel. Something you had clearly never heard of.

Now, you are trying to make out that the whole promissory estoppel argument was yours.

This is what you do. You are nothing but a conman.

How does this help the OP ?

Grow up.

 

[MNW67]

You might be right there. But I’d say most long, repetitive, unnecessary arguments, you’re part of. Or Start, keep going.

The need for a win is almost pathetic. I mean you, not MBK for clarity.

Have a day off.

I think you have got it very wrong. There is nobody on here more desperate for a win than MBK. Hence, why he will argue for a hundred pages over the meaning of a single word. At least my long discussions are about complex issues, like legal principles.

But as I said earlier in this discussion, we have a hectic few weeks starting tomorrow, so I will probably be posting less.

So, I just wanted to say that I have actually enjoyed many of the chats we have had more recently, since we found a way to stop fighting.

 

[denso13]

Even though it has been the leading authority on part payment for almost 150 years.

"Contracts 101" springs to mind. That's first year stuff...

 

[securespark]

But could SS still sue his ex for her share?

No. Sadly the next person she went out with strangled her.

She had an dreadful upbringing. I thought I was "helping" by giving her a stable loving relationship, but all she wanted was for me to be violent towards her. I couldn't do it and she would lash out towards me. The awful thing is she found somebody who would.

I found out by chance listening to the news in the car on the way home one day and despite how she treated me, I was absolutely gutted. She didn't deserve that.

I still didn't quite believe it, so rang the local force and mentioned some facts and he gently confirmed it.

It screwed me up big time and I had nightmares about being unable to save her and went for counselling. I'm OK now, but it took a while. I was remarried at the time and Mrs S was pregnant with son number one and she was an absolute star.

Her murderer has since died.

they were married. I assume.

We were.