WARNING - Avoid Shell

sillyvixen

Emz11 wrote: »

that is right it is the trading standards act 1864. it is section 9b i think, my friend who owns the conservatory firm (graham) has confirmed this for me as has another friend (nigel) who works for b&q so is in retail.

strange consevertry Graham and bin cleaning Nigel know about this act when google does not - even if had been superseded ( for example by the trading standard act 1947) i would still expect to see legal info on the act.

:TFor information the trading act 19647 does not exist either!!:T

michaelvintner

According to the means of payment act 1936 everything of value is legal tender and the shopkeeper must by law accept payment in any form the customer see fit. You should have offered to pay for the fuel with one Goat. One goat being equal in value to a tank full of fuel. However should you have payment which requires change such as a horse the shopkeeper is legally allowed under the same act to give change in whatever manner he feels is fit. Hence the act fell into disuse many years ago as shopkeepers were giving change in things such as old out of date stock and lumps of coal.

Rev

michaelvintner wrote: »

According to the means of payment act 1936 everything of value is legal tender and the shopkeeper must by law accept payment in any form the customer see fit. You should have offered to pay for the fuel with one Goat. One goat being equal in value to a tank full of fuel. However should you have payment which requires change such as a horse the shopkeeper is legally allowed under the same act to give change in whatever manner he feels is fit. Hence the act fell into disuse many years ago as shopkeepers were giving change in things such as old out of date stock and lumps of coal.

This is a company with cheap A4 signs and deliberate halal sandwiches. There's no way they'd have change for a horse. My friend who owns a pig farm told me.

d123

Emz11 wrote: »

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU THE SIGN WAS ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

d123 wrote:

Just tell us the name of the law eg. Trading Standards Act 1864 and the relevant section that makes such signs legal or illegal.

that is right it is the trading standards act 1864. it is section 9b i think, my friend who owns the conservatory firm (graham) has confirmed this for me as has another friend (nigel) who works for b&q so is in retail.

You silly fool, I MADE THE "TRADING STANDARDS ACT 1864" UP, JUST AS AN EXAMPLE!

Your trolling is falling apart, you don't seem to be clever enough to keep up the pretence. Do you really think that Trading Standards existed in 1864?

PoorCharleyBear

I used to work for Shell- but have resigned in disgust at the way this poster has been treated.

Shell does not make petrol from crude oil but from crushing shells, and BP does get theirs from milking bees. So now you all know.
(Texaco's is the decaying remnants of Texans so all environmentally friendly)

Pollycat

Emz11 wrote: »

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU THE SIGN WAS ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oooooh, Emz11 - are you getting a tad irate? :rotfl:

Here's a tip for you:
even if you type in capital letters (that's 'shouting' on the t'internet, btw) and no matter how many exclamation marks you type - it still doesn't make you right.

Emz11 wrote: »

in breach of the trading standards act and because the sign was so scruffy not normal person would assume it was a sign. inside the shop was also scruffy and no care was taken to ensure the legally recognised sign was by the till. i could not withdraw cash from the atm as there was a skimming device attached to it at that point in time

Yep, I agree - you're 'not normal person'.

Emz11 wrote: »

that is right it is the trading standards act 1864. it is section 9b i think, my friend who owns the conservatory firm (graham) has confirmed this for me as has another friend (nigel) who works for b&q so is in retail.

And how many times do you have to be told that the Trading Standards Act does not exist (I doubt your friends, Graham & Nigel exist either but that's a different point )

bazzyb wrote: »

There is no such thing as the trading standards act, so my earlier comment still stands.

MamaMoo wrote: »

Your friend is talking out of his backside, there's no such thing as the trading standards act.

MamaMoo wrote: »

There is no such thing as the trading standards act 1864.

RosiPossum wrote: »

No such thing as the Trading Standards Act.

photome

OP can you tell us a little bit about your state of mind as you really need help.

If others understood why you feel the need to make stuff up, they may not ridicule you but maybe would feel sorry for you

Dave101t

OP, whats illegal is being a circus freak in general population. go check the freaks and vagrants act of 1799.

as for a cash only sign? well that obviously means 'we accept debit cards'
a non-moron would then use said debit card at the adjoining cash machine to get the aforementioned.....cash!

pollypenny

Oh, I've long said we need a 'laugh' button to reply to posts!

This thread is amazing!

hollydays

Come on, fess up.. What was the insult they insulted your 62 year old mother with..?