We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Missleading Pictures
Comments
-
Stugib was entitled to his opinion, as was I, at the end of the day a court will decide what is appropriate. Still nothing on any profiteering or was it attempted?
Wig it's quiet simple. You gave completely silly amounts of money considering the age of the furniture. Now that is trying to use the legal system for personal gain (or suggest to others).Oh well that's what we have come to expect from you.
Trying to sound clever isn't going to help you Wig. You can do it till the cows come home but all it's going to do is help delude yourself. You're just showing how childish you are.0 -
You missed the fact that the amount I said was less than total purchase price? And you you missed that I had deducted an amount for benefit gained over the period.Wig it's quiet simple. You gave completely silly amounts of money considering the age of the furniture. Now that is trying to use the legal system for personal gain (or suggest to others).
No profiteering there then.0 -
Oh for goodness sake.
Timtims and Wig, put the handbags away and grow some balls!Should've = Should HAVE (not 'of')
Would've = Would HAVE (not 'of')
No, I am not perfect, but yes I do judge people on their use of basic English language. If you didn't know the above, then learn it! (If English is your second language, then you are forgiven!)0 -
Yes I know why you're confused Phil, it's because I didn't write that. So it kind of makes the rest of your post a bit irrelevant.
So what are you saying?
Damn right I'm confused. You're not putting a clear argument across and I'm trying to make sense out of your nonsense.
Are you saying a claim should only be made when it has real merit? If so, who do you think should decide if the claim's got merit? Because, err... that's what the court is there for! That's the whole point of having a court! So once again you've created a circular argument.Wig it's quiet simple. You gave completely silly amounts of money considering the age of the furniture. Now that is trying to use the legal system for personal gain (or suggest to others).
If, hypothetically, (and it's a very big 'if') the judge agrees with you on the lifespan of the furniture, Tim, the claim will fail anyway and the claimant will have wasted money on an unrecoverable court fee.
"Trying" to claim is meaningless if you don't succeed at it. So what exactly is the problem? How are people "milking" the legal system (as you said in post #29)?0 -
Phil, you're confusing yourself only. You're taking an observation about what a few people try and do, trying to change it into something else such as saying I'm saying everyone does this or the legal system is wrong etc etc (in an attempt to then try and say I'm not right).
There are people on here who will try and claim whether they actually take action or not to more than they are entitled to. There are people on here who will encourage others to do this. Whether they try then fail doesn't matter, that wasn't my original comment. I've an observation that some will try, encourage others to try for their own personal gain.
Are you and Wig again going to try and come back and then attempt to expand my observation into something else eg "so you trying to say xxxx". What I've said is written above, nothing more, nothing less. There is nothing to add/reinterpret (in an attempt to change what I've written so you can claim it's wrong).
I know what you're trying to do Phil, it's not going to work!0 -
You missed the fact that the amount I said was less than total purchase price? And you you missed that I had deducted an amount for benefit gained over the period.
No profiteering there then.
You had deducted far to little. If you deduct far to little the op will have gained. They will have used an item for a certain amount of time for much less money than a credible value. Can you rent such items for such a little amount of money, of course not. The op would have got more out of the situation than they actually paid for. They would have been in a position of gain.0 -
Short intermission...I shot a vein in my neck and coughed up a Quaalude.
Lou Reed The Last Shot0 -
As the benefit obtained had been minimal, I deducted what I considered to be an appropriate amount. In any event it was just a ball park figure and the judge would be the person to decide the correct amount. So where is the opportunity to make money?
Perhaps you'd like to discuss something equally !!!!!! like, on a scale of 1 - 10 how dry you consider cranberry juice to be? I'll go first,
I think it is a 7 (with 10 being extremely dry). Now you can say what you think it should be and tell me I'm wrong. Just don't go over 10 because then I could accuse you of making excessive dryness.0 -
Cranberry juice is definitely a 9. Fact.I shot a vein in my neck and coughed up a Quaalude.
Lou Reed The Last Shot0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.2K Spending & Discounts
- 246.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards