N
Newboy
Understood and agreed - but if you read my earlier posts, the police were not asked for legal advice.
Understood and agreed - but if you read my earlier posts, the police were not asked for legal advice.
E
EddieM
Which presumably forms part of the contract between the builder and the supplier, the homeowner has not entered into this contract with the subcontractor.
Sorry, their only redress is with the builder.
N
Newboy
Which part of "you can't sell things which don't belong to you" are you finding it hard to understand?
The builder (who took the money from the homeowner) has failed to pay for the windows.
The windows are not his property because they are still owned by the people who made them.
The homeowners redress is against the builder for breach of contract - he was asked to supply and install windows - he has failed to do so and is therefore in breach
The builder (who took the money from the homeowner) has failed to pay for the windows.
The windows are not his property because they are still owned by the people who made them.
The homeowners redress is against the builder for breach of contract - he was asked to supply and install windows - he has failed to do so and is therefore in breach
N
Newboy
If I was the homeowner, I'd be asking the builder what exactly is going on. "I've paid you, so why haven't you paid for the materials?
then the windows shouldn't have left their premises until paid for in full. but then they might get a bit dusty sitting there, since they'll wait till a tradesman has got the capital to buy them and offer them to a customer.
you ARE allowed to sell things that don't belong to you in specific circumstances, it's called credit.
and suppliers don't maintain a right to steal back their stuff if the guy defaults. as Eddie said, the homeowner has no contract with the supplier, and shouldn't suffer because of it.
N
Newboy
OK - I've tried to explain and demonstrate the legal and practical implications of commercial transactions. I clearly haven't done a good enough job to convince you.
There is a big (legal) difference between taking money for something and selling something and it always revolves around who is the legal owner of the item(s) being sold.
If you believe that I'm wrong then so be it. Short of re-stating what I've already said there's very little else I can say.
There is a big (legal) difference between taking money for something and selling something and it always revolves around who is the legal owner of the item(s) being sold.
If you believe that I'm wrong then so be it. Short of re-stating what I've already said there's very little else I can say.
How many times can a borrowed car be sold on?
Who ultimately owns the car?
Who ultimately owns the car?
Are you telling me your lawyers told you that you could enter private property, without permission, to retrieve your goods?
I'd love to see that in writing.
I understand what you say about titles, the bit I'm contesting is what that gives you the right to do. I think your understanding seems to be a little optimistic to the side of the builder / supplier which is understandable, as you have an income to protect. but there's no point pretending you can do as you please, causing whatever damage on the way, to recover your goods that may not even be in the state you sold them in.
N
Newboy
If you want to see it in writing then get yourself a (decent real world) lawyer!
Police in attendance - once at our request and once as a result of our attending and the police being called.
I'm not sure what you find hard to comprehend - the recoveries took place/debts were recovered and nobody got arrested.
N
Newboy
I haven't said anything of the sort nor have I "pretended" that to be the case.
E
EddieM
http://www.michael-gerard.co.uk/blog/briefings/retention_of_title/
And
Should clarify. As you can see at best it qualifies as mixed or processed goods. But as in this case an innocent 3rd party then they have not a leg to stand on.
So they have plainly and clearly commited an offence and even if they were to go down a legal route, it would have been "extremely unlikely to succeed"
http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/threads/removal-of-unpaid-for-goods.174336/
And
Should clarify. As you can see at best it qualifies as mixed or processed goods. But as in this case an innocent 3rd party then they have not a leg to stand on.
So they have plainly and clearly commited an offence and even if they were to go down a legal route, it would have been "extremely unlikely to succeed"
http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/threads/removal-of-unpaid-for-goods.174336/
N
Newboy
And yet they did!
I'm not sure how many times you need to be shown that ROT can work before you try to prove it doesn't!
Here's a suggestion - find me a case where somebody has been successfully prosecuted for attempting to enforce an ROT.
Specifically the ROT element not breaking other laws
Did you enter private property without legal permission?
N
