Howdens Traders passing on discount - Scam??

keystone

Leif wrote: »

As for Keystone, he has previously read into my posts large amounts of information that was not there, so I will ignore him.

So the very fact that you write your posts in an ambigous way and include assumptions dressed up as fact leading you to be challenged on it is the fault of those who read it? And you accuse me of arrogance? You might just like to reread what you write before hitting submit - all of us do it from time tio time thats the problem with forums. Am I your target because I persisted in digging. Well I'm not the only one who questions you.

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.

Ahh diddums. I couldn't be offended less to be absolutely honest. Oh do you mean the thread on which I failed to notice that you had asked me a question? Did I not apologise for that on this thread last night? Have I not now given you a reasonable answer to your question or did you just not bother to read that either instead choosing to hurl your teddy in the corner?

As a general point I would observe that ad hominems are usually the sign of grudging admission that the argument is lost.

Cheers

keystone

Leif wrote: »

I did not say that comments from others are stupid (apart from Keystone).

Oh do behave.

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.

Actually you are totally correct. Now if you (someone, anyone) had started a separate thread to ask that very question using the OPs complaint as a hypothetical subject then I, for one, would have contributed quite differently.

And it seems to me that many here are arguing on the basis of fine details,

I am sorry that you seem unable to see that because of what the OP claimed upfront it was and is the fine detail which is important.

And it is my OPINION that I have expressed.

You are entitled to your opinion as is everyone else. On this thread your opinion was being expressed as established fact by yourgoodself. That is what I was questioning you. At least you have had the decency this morning after Jillys post last night not to brandish the "see I was right, I was right" banner for all to see.

Cheers

Leif

keystone wrote: »

Oh do behave.

Actually you are totally correct. Now if you (someone, anyone) had started a separate thread to ask that very question using the OPs complaint as a hypothetical subject then I, for one, would have contributed quite differently.

I am sorry that you seem unable to see that because of what the OP claimed upfront it was and is the fine detail which is important.

You are entitled to your opinion as is everyone else. On this thread your opinion was being expressed as established fact by yourgoodself. That is what I was questioning you. At least you have had the decency this morning after Jillys post last night not to brandish the "see I was right, I was right" banner for all to see.

Cheers

I was saying that I was shocked by the opinions expressed here by many in the building and related trades. Whether they are legally correct is neither here nor there to me. What matter TO ME is whether or not they are morally correct IN MY OPINION. If someone is splitting fine hairs between legal and illegal then that makes me concerned. How many tradesmen/woman do likewise? Is this the norm? The comments by cddc are informative i.e. that dubious practices are not exactly rare. (Go back and read his posts, I paraphrase, don't care if you object, just go back to his posts.)

Leif

keystone wrote: »

So the very fact that you write your posts in an ambigous way and include assumptions dressed up as fact leading you to be challenged on it is the fault of those who read it?

Nonsense. For example, you came to the conclusion that the builder and I annoy each other, a conclusion based on zero evidence. You also made the assumption that I do not speak to him, which was false. And so on. You launched in with a good solid kicking assuming I was doing everything wrong, rather than a diplomatic approach without making assumptions. The tone of your post was arrogant.

Leif

the_r_sole wrote: »

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!

Okay, sorry, fair point. I was referring to posts early on in this thread where it was clear to me that the OP's complaint was that the builder claimed to supply materials (kitchen) at cost, but added a markup. Other people were giving her a goold old bashing, rather than being understanding, and tactful, saying silly things about it being the end of making a profit if she were to win. It read to me like a simple case of deception. The OP has confirmed that my interpretation was correct. I didn't find it hard to understand what the issue was, as I thought her posts were clear.

The one point that is valid is that there is no specific detail to see what the legal ruling has been, and hence exactly what the builder did wrong in the eyes of the law.

keystone

Leif wrote: »

I was saying that I was shocked by the opinions expressed here by many in the building and related trades.

Recently yes you have. Previously you were not hence the questions to you. Is that such a difficult concept or are you changing the subject? Just interested.

Edit: Does my suggestion of a separate thread to discuss that as a hypothetical situation resonate with you?

Cheers

keystone

Leif wrote: »

Nonsense. For example, you came to the conclusion that the builder and I annoy each other, a conclusion based on zero evidence. You also made the assumption that I do not speak to him, which was false. And so on. You launched in with a good solid kicking assuming I was doing everything wrong, rather than a diplomatic approach without making assumptions. The tone of your post was arrogant.

I was talking about your posts on this thread FGS. You are talking here about the wrong thread. In any event where was the kicking? I told it as I saw it from what you had described. If that was too close to the truth then I'm sorry but it was my analysis of what you were describing. You came asking. You got an honest analysis. Did you expect a there there, never mind, wrap you in cotton wool type of answer? How would that actually help might I ask? Anyway does my input from last night help? You now seem more concerned with having a pop at me rather than reading that.

Cheers

Alan_M_2

jillytb wrote: »

Keystone, I took the builder to court because he did not fulfil his agreement to pass on the discount to me, he offered to buy it at "trade discount" on my behalf. IT was an oral agreement and I made the claim on that basis.

The judge made an order for him to "repay" me "the difference" and also made an order in favour of my other claims.

I hope this clarifies things.

Yes I had a nice outing thank you:)

Splendid, seeing as you now feel it's no longer a secret to post the outcome of the case (not sure what changed in the last few days?)

Can we see the case details and findings of the judge please. I'm genuinely interested (in a non sarcastic or condescending way) to know the actual details.

Seriously, I'm really interested in the courts findings, can we read them please?

phill99

Alan_M wrote: »

Can we see the case details and findings of the judge please.

Don't hold your breath.

Alan_M_2

phill99 wrote: »

Don't hold your breath.

I know what you're saying Phil, it's actually why I stopped posting on this thread, it had got a bit silly hadn't it.

Ultimately, I don't really care what people think has happened I'd like to know what actually happened, especially as there appears to not even have been a written contract.

It's interesting to see the judges interpretation.

What is my interest?

I'm a wholesale supplier to the trade, I have several "trade prices" those trade prices are based directly on how much a customer orders. It's a basic economy of scale, but it's free market capitalism that allows us to work in this manner.

I have customers who spend £2500 a year with me and others who spend £250,000 a year with me. They both get "trade price" but their "Trade price" isn't the same.

Why I'm so interested in this case is the judge would have had to determine what the "trade price" of a product is before judgement, a definition if you will. It's that I'm interested in, not a single consumers crusade.

Can you imagine if this case determines the price/mark up that a company is allowed to describe as "trade price". That is the part i find potentially groundbreaking.

That aside.

The only logical explanation for the case notes and judgement to be consiously withheld is there is an appeal being made on the case by the other party. That would actually make more sense, but for the time being the judgement, if it has indeed been made, is public domain information, if you can find it.