(central-heating) air in system

[Onetap]

Where is this responsibility defined? Is it, like a great many things, only in your head?

In the law.

Specifically, which law would that be?

Etc., etc., etc..

You seem to find difficulty in recognizing the simple fact that I hadn't bothered to answer you, Softus.
That doesn't mean that there is no answer.
I have other things to do and you're not very high up on my list of priorities.

However, the answer is that it is established in case law, the body of previous legal decisions. Probably the Sale of Goods Act would feature, but I'm not a lawyer and don't claim to know. I did a week's residential course on contract law a long time back.

You, being a heating technician and purveyor of fine boiler installations, would be expected to know that attaching a new combi to an existing installation that's full of sludge is not a good idea. You'd could also be reasonably expected to know that a open vented system might not wok with a sealed system , due to leaks or pressure failures.

The case law about contracts consists of previous court decisions which could be referred to, starting with Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (I kid you not);

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlill_v._Carbolic_Smoke_Ball_Company

A solicitor would demolish your arguments in 10 seconds flat and drag you into the County Court.

The 15 years liability refers to latent defects; I'd imagine it was decided as a reasonable limit for liability in some obscure case. It is real though, I just can't be bothered to look it up.

 

[Softus]

You seem to find difficulty in recognizing the simple fact that I hadn't bothered to answer you, Softus.

Really? My last post made it very clear that you hadn't bothered.

That doesn't mean that there is no answer.
I have other things to do and you're not very high up on my list of priorities.

Clearly you've been working down that list and reached me - I'm honoured.

However, the answer is that it is established in case law, the body of previous legal decisions.

Do you know which cases, or are you just guessing?

Probably the Sale of Goods Act would feature, but I'm not a lawyer and don't claim to know. I did a week's residential course on contract law a long time back.

Ah - you're just guessing.

You, being a heating technician and purveyor of fine boiler installations, would be expected to know that attaching a new combi to an existing installation that's full of sludge is not a good idea.

I seem to know that without being either of the things you assume me to be.

You'd could also be reasonably expected to know that a open vented system might not wok with a sealed system , due to leaks or pressure failures.

I'd never use a wok on a sealed system, even if it was an electric wok.

The case law about contracts consists of previous court decisions which could be referred to, starting with Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (I kid you not);

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlill_v._Carbolic_Smoke_Ball_Company[/QUOTE]
That famous case about Contract Law does nothing to support your ridiculous statements about negligence (sic.).

A solicitor would demolish your arguments in 10 seconds flat and drag you into the County Court.

Many have tried, but none has succeeded.

The 15 years liability refers to latent defects; I'd imagine it was decided as a reasonable limit for liability in some obscure case. It is real though, I just can't be bothered to look it up.

Hm. Your overactive imagination is overshadowed by your laziness.

 

[Onetap]

The 15 years liability refers to latent defects; I'd imagine it was decided as a reasonable limit for liability in some obscure case. It is real though, I just can't be bothered to look it up.

Hm. Your overactive imagination is overshadowed by your laziness.

Lazy?

Since when was I obliged to supply you with free legal advice?
If you want to know then go Google.
Too lazy?
Then go and pay a lawyer

I seem to know that without being either of the things you assume me to be.

So you agree with me & with Agile that it is inadvisable and a contractor could be expected to know that?
So why are you trying to pick an argument?
Nothing better to spend your time on?

However, the answer is that it is established in case law, the body of previous legal decisions.

Do you know which cases, or are you just guessing?

Since you ask so nicely, Pirelli v Oscar Faber.

See page 4;
http://www.beale-law.com/Beale_Legal_Review_2005.pdf

The plaintiff had 3 years from the date of the discovery of the latent defect (the failure of foundations in that case), or 15 years from the date of negligent act. My notes are 20+ years old and other cases or statutes may have modified this.

A solicitor would demolish your arguments in 10 seconds flat and drag you into the County Court.

Many have tried, but none has succeeded.

Many have complained about your negligent work?
I believe you.

I hadn't bothered to answer you earlier Softus because you're an idiot.

 

[Softus]

I just can't be bothered to look it up.
.
.
.
Lazy?

It would seem so. How else do you interpret "can't be bothered"?

Since when was I obliged to supply you with free legal advice?

At what point did I request it?

If you want to know then go Google.
Too lazy?
Then go and pay a lawyer

No need for either of those, since I already know.

I seem to know that without being either of the things you assume me to be.

So you agree with me & with Agile that it is inadvisable and a contractor could be expected to know that?

I don't appear to have indicated anywhere that I agree, so I can't imagine what makes you think that I do.

So why are you trying to pick an argument?

I would choose to call it a discussion, or even a debate, but if you call my difference of opinion an argument, or if you call my asking you a question about the statement you made, in order to demonstrate that you were wrong, an argument, then so be it.

Nothing better to spend your time on?

That's a value judgment that you have insufficient information to be able to make.

However, the answer is that it is established in case law, the body of previous legal decisions.

Do you know which cases, or are you just guessing?

Since you ask so nicely, Pirelli v Oscar Faber.

See page 4;
http://www.beale-law.com/Beale_Legal_Review_2005.pdf

The plaintiff had 3 years from the date of the discovery of the latent defect (the failure of foundations in that case), or 15 years from the date of negligent act. My notes are 20+ years old and other cases or statutes may have modified this.

Thank you - I'm not familiar with that case so I shall read up on it and see what I make of it.

Many have complained about your negligent work?
I believe you.

You seem ready to believe something that you've imagined I implied. Your readiness to adopt such a fantasy is consistent with your fundamental misunderstanding of the tort of negligence.

I hadn't bothered to answer you earlier Softus because you're an idiot.

I hadn't realised that I'm an idiot, but I suppose an idiot wouldn't realise. However, since you've now answered me, it would be logical to conclude that I'm not an idiot, so I'm left wondering why you're capable of changing your mind so quickly and easily, and whether it's because you tend not to think things through very clearly. That would be OK, because others are thinking clearly on your behalf.

 

[megawatt]

Wowsers I missed an interesting afternoon with this post

Onetap: Do you have any idea how stupid it makes you look when you refer people to an authority on a wikipedia site which has no governance whatsoever i.e. people like you could have posted the latest submission and be the authority.

The fact of the matter is, as Softus has been trying to get you to recognise most of the afternoon, there is no law which legitimises your argument, each case would be taken on its own merit so just accept it and move on.

Making meaningless statements about negligence and jail terms for an issue such as this does you no justice at all.

MW

 

[Softus]

To be fair to Onetap, I don't think he/she ever mentioned jail terms.

 

[Onetap]

Making meaningless statements about negligence and jail terms for an issue such as this does you no justice at all.
MW

You thought 15 years' liability meant a jail term?

Murderers don't get 15 years. A dodgy compression joint probably won't result in you being banged up.

Onetap: Do you have any idea how stupid it makes you look when you refer people to an authority on a wikipedia site

You think I look stupid?

I'd suggest you read the Wikipedia article. You may then have a clue.

A book on contract law may help you. If you buy anything, from a book of matches to a skyscraper, there's a contract involved, even if it isn't written down. This applies to boilers.

 

[megawatt]

Onetap wrote:

You thought 15 years' liability meant a jail term?

Not really, my mind was on another post when I replied unfortunately, apologies for the confusion.

Onetap wrote:

You think I look stupid?

Quoting Wikipedia as references ... Errrm actually, yes I do ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupidity

Onetap wrote:

A book on contract law may help you

And a book on common sense may help you.

If I have a legal problem I'll engage a lawyer not google the problem nor refer to Wikipedia and definately wouldn't buy a book on contract law and think I'm Judge John Deed... Great way to lose your house

MW

 

[Onetap]

Onetap wrote:

You thought 15 years' liability meant a jail term?

Not really, my mind was on another post when I replied unfortunately, apologies for the confusion.

Oh, yes you did.

[If I have a legal problem I'll engage a lawyer ...........

A great way to lose your house.

......google the problem nor refer to Wikipedia and definately wouldn't buy a book on contract law and think I'm Judge John Deed... Great way to lose your house

I don't think I'm a lawyer. I just think you'd find it helpful to know a bit about contract law, since all your dealings are covered by it.

Which house?