Howdens Traders passing on discount - Scam??

Leif

Keystone:

It is only in the last week or so that a number of people in the trade have started to agree that IF what the OP says is accurate, then it would be dishonest. Most people were more interested in making stupid statements about how it would be the end of profit, rather than agreeing that were someone to claim to supply a kitchen at cost, and fit for a fixed fee, but in fact make a huge profit on the kitchen, that would be dishonest. Many gave the OP a good kicking. Go back and read the thread. (The issue of whether or not you believe the OP is a separate issue.)

keystone wrote: »

So you should be ashamed of yourself for tarring eveybody with an unproven brush and whether you like it or not I remain offended by it.

Bull. Complete and total bull. I will not waste my time commenting on such utter nonsense. I wonder which planet you live on.

System

I'm glad Leif has clearly seen all the relevant details of the case to claim most people's comments are stupid, when their's is obviously the only correct view

maybe you could share any facts you are privy to, or would you prefer just to keep battling on with your interpretations being fact?

Leif

the_r_sole wrote: »

I'm glad Leif has clearly seen all the relevant details of the case to claim most people's comments are stupid, when their's is obviously the only correct view

maybe you could share any facts you are privy to, or would you prefer just to keep battling on with your interpretations being fact?

I did not say any such thing. There are perhaps two issues here: a) the reliability of the OP's account (form your own view) and b) whether or not it is acceptable to claim to supply an item at cost, but in fact make a profit. The argument about whether or not the OP is truthful, and the exact details of the case is not going to be profitable because we cannot independently verify her claims, so any conclusion must be based on whether or not we believe her. But, it is clear from earlier posts that a number of people in the trade think it acceptable to claim to supply an item at cost, but in fact make a profit. I am glad to see that some recent posters such as cddc condemn that practice and rightly so in my view.

As for Keystone, he has previously read into my posts large amounts of information that was not there, so I will ignore him. And if he is offended by my post, then good, I cannot think of a person I would like to offend more given his obnoxiousness on another thread.

System

see, what it really gets down to in a court (dealing with a verbal contract) is semantics, as above you have clearly not taken the meaning of "cost" or "trade" but i guess that's just another stupid comment for you to shout down from way up there....
so unless you know the detail and facts relating to the exact case in hand here, please don't feel the urge to say any comment is stupid just because they don't agree with your views

jillytb

the_r_sole wrote: »

see, what it really gets down to in a court (dealing with a verbal contract) is semantics, as above you have clearly not taken the meaning of "cost" or "trade" but i guess that's just another stupid comment for you to shout down from way up there....
so unless you know the detail and facts relating to the exact case in hand here, please don't feel the urge to say any comment is stupid just because they don't agree with your views

I have yet to see just one constructive comment from you the_r_sole.

jillytb

andrew-b thank you:)

System

jillytb wrote: »

I have yet to see just one constructive comment from you the_r_sole.

it's impossible as you have constantly refused to post any evidence or fact - but then when someone posts something you like you agree that that was what happened with your case

Leif

the_r_sole wrote: »

see, what it really gets down to in a court (dealing with a verbal contract) is semantics, as above you have clearly not taken the meaning of "cost" or "trade" but i guess that's just another stupid comment for you to shout down from way up there....
so unless you know the detail and facts relating to the exact case in hand here, please don't feel the urge to say any comment is stupid just because they don't agree with your views

Assuming you are replying to me, again you attribute to me something I did not say. I did not say that comments from others are stupid (apart from Keystone). Do not put words into my mouth. I am criticising the opinions of some posters.

And yes you are right that what matters is the decision of a court. But we are told that a civil court has upheld the complaint. (You can choose to disbelieve that claim if you wish.) But we can separate out whether or not something is morally right, and whether or not something is legally right. The two do not necessarily coincide. And it seems to me that many here are arguing on the basis of fine details, which a lawyer would do. And it is my OPINION that I have expressed.

System

Leif wrote: »

Keystone:

It is only in the last week or so that a number of people in the trade have started to agree that IF what the OP says is accurate, then it would be dishonest. Most people were more interested in making stupid statements about how it would be the end of profit, rather than agreeing that were someone to claim to supply a kitchen at cost, and fit for a fixed fee, but in fact make a huge profit on the kitchen, that would be dishonest. Many gave the OP a good kicking. Go back and read the thread. (The issue of whether or not you believe the OP is a separate issue.)

we have no idea what the complaint upheld by the court was and i wasn't putting words in your mouth, i was reading your posts!

keystone

Leif wrote: »

Keystone:

It is only in the last week or so that a number of people in the trade have started to agree that IF what the OP says is accurate, then it would be dishonest.

So what? The thread is about whether this particular tradesman was dishonest not generalities. You are right about the use of "if" though and I did note that you were one of the first to use it as opposed to a previously dogmatic "guilty as charged" approach.

Most people were more interested in making stupid statements about how it would be the end of profit, rather than agreeing that were someone to claim to supply a kitchen at cost, and fit for a fixed fee, but in fact make a huge profit on the kitchen, that would be dishonest.

No you are quite, quite wrong thats not what people were saying at all. The questions arose because the OP (perhaps by accident in hindsight) was giving the impression that normal business practices were being "tested" for want of a better word by this case which was being trumpeted as a "win" but details being refused. Can you wonder that people asked the question then?

Now please read this again for it is the umpteenth time I have said it and you still won't address my question. It was you who introduced the statement of "fitting at cost". It was you who intrduced fraud into the equation. The OP didn't. So it became your turn to be asked questions. The "were someone to claim to supply a kitchen at cost, and fit for a fixed fee, but in fact make a huge profit on the kitchen, that would be dishonest." question was irrelevant because that is not what the OP was actually claiming at the start of the thread (actually in hindsight after many wasted pages she has confirmed that it is) so in reality by dogmatically persuing this line as fact you took the thread offtopic. You were the only one persuing this line all everyone else was doiing was asking questions.

Many gave the OP a good kicking.

If you chose to interpret it that way then thats your choice. I agree that some people were short with her but why can't you see that the "yah boo, sucks, shan't, won't, make me" type of response to genuine questions wouldn't have got their back up?

The issue of whether or not you believe the OP is a separate issue.

I agree entirely.

Bull. Complete and total bull. I will not waste my time commenting on such utter nonsense. I wonder which planet you live on.

So you say something. I seek your clarification as to whether that is really what you are meaning, you eventually, after some digression, confirm it is. I respond that in that case I took some personal offence (which is apparently equivalent to having a hissy fit ) and its my fault according to you. What planet are you from?

I asked you very politely last evening to confirm one way or the other what you meant and if you confirmed the opposite of how I had interpreted it then I would withdraw and that would include what you are now describing as bull. Or perhaps your description of it as bull is a roundabout way of saying that you did not mean the offending paragraph to read the way I had interpreted it? However, I suspect not. So the ball remains in your court buddy on that one as it has been for some hours. All you have to do is tell us what you meant by the paragraph - or have you been advised not too?

Cheers