parcel force clearance fee

d123

tremault wrote: »

Yes, chattels exactly what I said. Do I need to spell it out to you?

Yes, why not.

Explain why the common law definition (which actually is quite similar to the statutory legal definition and nothing like your previous American definition) would take precedence over a statutory definition enacted into UK law in 2015.


[

tremault wrote: »

Also misogynist means against woman, seems I need to spell that out too. A woman can be a misogynist.

You speak just like a misogynist, or someone who does that 'mansplaining' thing or a chauvinist. It's not an insult, it's an observation of behaviour.

That all sounds like a tremendous case of embarrassment on your part after looking rather silly arguing American definitions are applicable to UK law.

Could you point out (by quoting) any misogynistic statements made, please?

d123

tremault wrote: »

Yes, chattels exactly what I said.

Just for clarity (and education), here’s the definition of chattels

chattel
/ˈtʃat(ə)l/
noun
plural noun: chattels
(in general use) a personal possession.

LAW
an item of property other than freehold land, including tangible goods ( chattels personal ) and leasehold interests ( chattels real ).

Statutory definition

Goods” means any tangible moveable items, but that includes water, gas and electricity if and only if they are put up for supply in a limited volume or set quantity.

Chattels is remarkably similar to the CRA 2015, no?

Amazing!

System

Funny that I already told you that isn't it.

How embarrassing for you.

System

Anyway fixate all you like on one word. I have better things to do.

Im done with this place and I really don't need the constant emails all the time.

I won't be back.

Nick_C

tremault wrote: »

I won't be back.

Well that's a relief!

d123

tremault wrote: »

I won't be back.

Probably for the best, there might be other places on the internet that are just echo chambers to only hear what you want, rather than to be told the facts.

martindow

I see the OP has been deleting posts as always seems to happen with posters who receive advice and facts they don't like.



Luckily the original post was quoted in #8 so the thread still makes sense (in the replies to tremault at least).

soolin

martindow wrote: »

I see the OP has been deleting posts as always seems to happen with posters who receive advice and facts they don't like.



Luckily the original post was quoted in #8 so the thread still makes sense (in the replies to tremault at least).

Even though the OP was not able to understand the regulations I think this thread is still useful as there are a lot of properly researched answers and quotes from the relevant bodies.

shaun_from_Africa

soolin wrote: »

Even though the OP was not able to understand the regulations I think this thread is still useful as there are a lot of properly researched answers and quotes from the relevant bodies.

Not to mention, quite a few quotes and legal definitions that may prove useful to any Americans who wander onto this forum looking for help with a problem they have back in America.

soolin

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Not to mention, quite a few quotes and legal definitions that may prove useful to any Americans who wander onto this forum looking for help with a problem they have back in America.

The 'do I have to pay this import charge' is probably the most asked question on MSE as it is usually on several boards at the same time. I wonder if we could use some of the pertinent links that have been usually provided on this thread to make up a sticky thread.