N
Newboy
I have no idea why you quoted "stuff"!
Define legal permission for me and I'll let you know. Police present and not arrested should be some sort of clue though!
I have no idea why you quoted "stuff"!
Define legal permission for me and I'll let you know. Police present and not arrested should be some sort of clue though!
N
Newboy
And the last line on you original link
"So ROT clauses remains good in the twentieth first century, but with caveats."
any more links you can provide that demonstrate retention of title is useful and actionable IN LAW?
N
Newboy
and the last piece of advice on this link (provided by you - thank you!) is
"I guess the trick would be not to pre-warn your customer - just turn up and if your beams haven't been attached to anything then load them up and drive away before anyone cottons on to you. And if someone tells you to take your pick, don't fall for it"
I have to ask why you are being so cagey with details.
Did you, or did you not get legal permission to enter private property to secure your items that have not been incorporated into a building.
I find it hard to believe your case example is relevant when you say the property owner was arrested for fraud, and you persist in being vague with any particulars.
Smells like bullshit......
And that piece of advice (that you also selectivly quoted) was from . .. duuuudaadadaaaaa
A Practising Accountant.......
Shame you didnt quote the people on that thread that are actual solicitors, but then they are the ones saying your contract is toilet paper.
N
Newboy
What a bizarre response!
1) The quotes I gave were in response to a specific posting from another forum user
2) The technical answer to your question is that we were "invited onto the property"
3) I really don't mind if you find it hard to believe whatever you choose to think!
4) I'm hardly likely to post specific details on a public forum
5) Feel free to smell whatever you wish
6) Try a more pragmatic approach to the subject rather than making assumptions. I'm giving actual examples, the thread concerned an actual situation whereas all the other posts have been hypothetical situations and uninformed guesswork.
If you want to talk with the law firms involved then get your cheque book out and have a chat with them
Contracts drawn up by http://www.freshfields.com/en/global/
Legal advice by http://www.hoganlovells.com/ (although at the time they were then Lovell White Durrant)
Or you could continue to trawl the internet for your advice, I suspect your only quoted legal source of "scumbaglawyer" may be less expensive
1) The quotes I gave were in response to a specific posting from another forum user
2) The technical answer to your question is that we were "invited onto the property"
3) I really don't mind if you find it hard to believe whatever you choose to think!
4) I'm hardly likely to post specific details on a public forum
5) Feel free to smell whatever you wish
6) Try a more pragmatic approach to the subject rather than making assumptions. I'm giving actual examples, the thread concerned an actual situation whereas all the other posts have been hypothetical situations and uninformed guesswork.
If you want to talk with the law firms involved then get your cheque book out and have a chat with them
Contracts drawn up by http://www.freshfields.com/en/global/
Legal advice by http://www.hoganlovells.com/ (although at the time they were then Lovell White Durrant)
Or you could continue to trawl the internet for your advice, I suspect your only quoted legal source of "scumbaglawyer" may be less expensive
So your example is irrelevant then.....
You are not giving examples, you are giving an example, which is also not similar and includes a case of the property owner apparently commiting fraud.
Try harder, you fail.
You don't need to trawl the internet, it is more a case that you drown in answers from legal sources telling you that tresspass is illigal, and contracts do not allow you to enter a 3rd parties property without permission.
But then I think you know this, which is why you consistantly selectivly quote and provide obtuse details.
N
Newboy
I'm finding it hard to understand why I'm responding to the last post but, as I'm a patient sort of a bloke and like to try to help other people here we go.
Let me give you a bit of advice:
1) You have been given three examples of where ROT has been effective - rather than reading selectively, read the entire post.
2) You need to understand what constitutes permission and what constitutes trespass - at the moment you think that you do but you don't!
3) Obtuse details - I'm hardly going to post commercially sensitive (and copyright) details on a public forum am I?
4) I have learnt a lot so far in life by following this simple rule
When I don't know or understand something, I ask a question, I shut up and I listen to the answer. If I still don't understand then I ask more questions, I shut up and I listen to the answers.
At the moment, your approach is I don't believe/understand you so I'll keep talking.
Early on in this thread (quote shown below) you demonstrated that you didn't understand the legal process involved in this story that started this thread - have a careful read of the original article, the subsequent posts and see if you can pick out the salient points.
I'm more than happy to try to explain to you if you would like to carry on a reasoned argument
Over to you
edit; typo corrected
Let me give you a bit of advice:
1) You have been given three examples of where ROT has been effective - rather than reading selectively, read the entire post.
2) You need to understand what constitutes permission and what constitutes trespass - at the moment you think that you do but you don't!
3) Obtuse details - I'm hardly going to post commercially sensitive (and copyright) details on a public forum am I?
4) I have learnt a lot so far in life by following this simple rule
When I don't know or understand something, I ask a question, I shut up and I listen to the answer. If I still don't understand then I ask more questions, I shut up and I listen to the answers.
At the moment, your approach is I don't believe/understand you so I'll keep talking.
Early on in this thread (quote shown below) you demonstrated that you didn't understand the legal process involved in this story that started this thread - have a careful read of the original article, the subsequent posts and see if you can pick out the salient points.
The last line of your post demonstrates you lack of understanding.
I'm more than happy to try to explain to you if you would like to carry on a reasoned argument
Over to you
edit; typo corrected
Because you are easily trolled.
Irrelevant examples due to very differing circumstances.
Did you enter private property with or without permission from a court or from the landowner, no need to be obtuse about this!
N
Newboy
At the moment, your approach is I don't believe/understand you so I'll keep talking.
I'm more than happy to try to explain to you if you would like to carry on a reasoned argument
1) Not easily trolled - but you appear to be confirming that you don't want to understand you just want to argue.
2) Not sure where you get the lack of relevance from - all relate to title and legal ownership of the goods.
3) Already answered your question -although you've now changed the premise.
You still don't (want to?) understand trespass or permission
From my previous post
"At the moment, your approach is I don't believe/understand you so I'll keep talking.
I'm more than happy to try to explain to you if you would like to carry on a reasoned argument"
Again, over to you
I'm more than happy to try to explain to you if you would like to carry on a reasoned argument
1) Not easily trolled - but you appear to be confirming that you don't want to understand you just want to argue.
2) Not sure where you get the lack of relevance from - all relate to title and legal ownership of the goods.
3) Already answered your question -although you've now changed the premise.
You still don't (want to?) understand trespass or permission
From my previous post
"At the moment, your approach is I don't believe/understand you so I'll keep talking.
I'm more than happy to try to explain to you if you would like to carry on a reasoned argument"
Again, over to you
Just read the actual article out of interest after reading this thread.
FWIW, this discussion seems to be around the possible legality of the window company removing the window(s) and the fact that the police have stated it to be a civil matter.
Firstly, there would have been a trespass but, AFAIK,save for certain statutory offences, there is no outright offence of 'criminal trespass' on its own. The sort of trespass in this scenario would amount to a civil trespass which needs to be remedied via civil remedies.
The next question comes in respect of theft. Irrespective of who may own the window(s) a person can only commit theft if all the points are proved and the first one is whether the person who took the window(s) did so 'dishonestly'. Some may say he/she did BUT there is a statutory defence which relates to dishonesty. That states that:
A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest:
(a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person....
Therefore, even if it could be argued and proved that the window(s) belonged to the householder (which is debatable) the fitter (I am guessing) would say they believed they were entitled to do so because of what the company (third person) told them.
If no dishonesty is provable then there is no theft.
That leaves criminal damage as a possibility. On that score, nothing in the article states there was any damage to the owner's property by whoever removed the window(s)
Looking at the pictures, they may well have been removed without damage (I can't tell whether the windows had been fully fitted or it was just a case where the frame had been screwed into the blockwork)
If it was just the window itself damaged then that comes back to the arguments over who was the rightful owner and that also gives the fitter a potential statutory defence in some circumstances)
Just my tuppence worth of course...
B
FWIW, this discussion seems to be around the possible legality of the window company removing the window(s) and the fact that the police have stated it to be a civil matter.
Firstly, there would have been a trespass but, AFAIK,save for certain statutory offences, there is no outright offence of 'criminal trespass' on its own. The sort of trespass in this scenario would amount to a civil trespass which needs to be remedied via civil remedies.
The next question comes in respect of theft. Irrespective of who may own the window(s) a person can only commit theft if all the points are proved and the first one is whether the person who took the window(s) did so 'dishonestly'. Some may say he/she did BUT there is a statutory defence which relates to dishonesty. That states that:
A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest:
(a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person....
Therefore, even if it could be argued and proved that the window(s) belonged to the householder (which is debatable) the fitter (I am guessing) would say they believed they were entitled to do so because of what the company (third person) told them.
If no dishonesty is provable then there is no theft.
That leaves criminal damage as a possibility. On that score, nothing in the article states there was any damage to the owner's property by whoever removed the window(s)
Looking at the pictures, they may well have been removed without damage (I can't tell whether the windows had been fully fitted or it was just a case where the frame had been screwed into the blockwork)
If it was just the window itself damaged then that comes back to the arguments over who was the rightful owner and that also gives the fitter a potential statutory defence in some circumstances)
Just my tuppence worth of course...
B
N
Newboy
And another person with a brain!
