Implied Consent.

Joined
30 Jun 2008
Messages
16,765
Reaction score
2,300
Location
Suffolk
Country
United Kingdom
Quick question. If you ask someone permission to do something, (something legal), and their reply is, "You have to do what you have to do."
Would you take that to mean they are consenting to you doing it?
 
Sponsored Links
no.

they are refusing to answer.

perhaps because they see you trying to load responsibility for your actions onto their shoulders

or perhaps because they think you are a total arse.
 
Quick question. If you ask someone permission to do something, (something legal), and their reply is, "You have to do what you have to do."
Would you take that to mean they are consenting to you doing it?

Was the question: 'can I punch you in the head'
 
Sponsored Links
the comments
"You have to do what you have to do."in no way gives "meeting off minds "
its as far as you can possibly get from an agreement
a contract is well defined with an agreement there is no ambiguity what is written and signed will be the contract
you can have a verbal contract thats fine as long as you agree and indeed prove your understanding is fair and accurate as to what should be interpereted if it disagrees with the other sides interpretation then you have a dispute with possibly no meeting off mind so no contract
 
Last edited:
Quick question. If you ask someone permission to do something, (something legal), and their reply is, "You have to do what you have to do."
Would you take that to mean they are consenting to you doing it?
So, what did you ask them for permission to do?
 
the comments
"You have to do what you have to do."in no way gives "meeting off minds "
its as far as you can possibly get from an agreement
a contract is well defined with an agreement there is no ambiguity what is written and signed will be the contract
you can have a verbal contract thats fine as long as you agree and indeed prove your understanding is fair and accurate as to what should be interpereted if it disagrees with the other sides interpretation then you have a dispute with possibly no meeting off mind so no contract

Doesn't stop the BBC harrasing people for their sh1t and nasty TV licence money though does it
 
The question was from a colleague to a deputy supervisor when the foreman was off work.
Colleague had an emergency at home in the early hours of the morning. He phoned the deputy an hour before the deputies start time and asked for an emergency days holiday.
Deputies reply was, "You have to do what you have to do what you have to do", so he took the day off. Next day he was told it had been 'unauthorised' by HR because he hadn't given enough notice and he wouldn't be paid. (How are you supposed to give two days notice of an emergency?)
He is now waiting to go to Appeal against this decision.
 
was this the recognized chain off command ??
was the deputy supervisor on call as in once contacted on duty or what is the normal way to communicate out off work hours ??
 
Next day he was told it had been 'unauthorised' by HR because he hadn't given enough notice and he wouldn't be paid.
I can’t see that being a problem. He wasn’t sick and I don’t know of any company that pay employees who are off because of a domestic emergency. If he was expecting to take a days paid holiday at one hours notice then I’d say he was pushing his luck because that is what he was effectively asking for. If it’s not company policy to pay employees for time off for domestic emergencies, how the hell was the deputy supervisor supposed to authorise that?
 
Does it matter?

He isnt out of pocket, is he?

If he took it as a paid holiday, he would have less holiday available.

I dont see why the company cant give him a days holiday, paid. What difference is it to them? If they are upset, because they have lost a key worker at short notice: well everybody has the occasional emergency. Whichever way you look at it, the guy was taking the time off. The only difference is whether the company pay him for a days holiday now, or sometime in the future, when a days holiday is booked in advance.

It seems a bit of a storm in a teacup to me.
 
i got the feeling he was more worried about being disciplined but iff i have got that wrong then its just a case off negotiation if the money is the big issue
 
i got the feeling he was more worried about being disciplined but iff i have got that wrong then its just a case off negotiation if the money is the big issue

Ah yes, I can see that.

If he is being disciplined, then the company are totally stupid. All they are then saying is: 'we want you to lie'.

Because he couldve said: I cant come in, Ive been up all night vomiting.

Company HR procedures are just designed to build a lack of trust on both sides.

We all know more single days off sick are Monday and Friday. Its amazing how many doctors and dentists appointment there are on Friday afternoons :ROFLMAO:
 
Quick question. If you ask someone permission to do something, (something legal), and their reply is, "You have to do what you have to do."
Would you take that to mean they are consenting to you doing it?
"Excuse me Mrs,can I have sex with you"
"Do what you gotta do"
Hmm...interesting one for the courts..Don't bank on it being classed as consent.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top