Defendant filed a counter-claim, But no order was made by the court that I had to file a defence.

BoGoF

You are just not getting it......it doesn't matter what you or the defendant describe each other as. Ultimately the judge will decide on the evidence presented. And from what you said here your intention was to resell the product.

unholyangel

October868 wrote: »

Everyone in this thread seems fixated on if I would be deemed as a consumer or mutal business-partner.... :S

The defendant herself has always stated to the court that I was merely a consumer, nothing more.

I personally wouldn't of minded being a trader, as could've just used the alternative legislation, but the defendant made it clear in all her statements that she regarded me as a consumer, so I have accepted that role, thus making it an agreed fact.

No, you said she's called you a customer and only now after having the difference highlighted to you, have you changed it to consumer.

The reason we're making a point of it is because you're being so cagey with actual details and the law treats b2c very differently to b2b. There is nowhere near the same level of protection (theres legislation sure, but not a cotton wool one like the CRA), its possible to contract out of rights and due diligence is expected.

Diamandis

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

I'm sure the question is likely to come up, but how did you intend to use the "custom-scripted video clips"? I'm struggling to come up with a believable consumer purpose, unless it was just for the personal satisfaction of having written the scripts and seeing them performed by actors (a bit like vanity publishing) or they're for some sort of family entertainment.

I was more thinking they are likely to be videos of a sexual nature.

da_rule

Also, if you haven’t actually said in your particulars of claim that you were a consumer for the purpose of the Act (and have instead made reference to being a customer of the supplier) the judge may not even realise that this is relevant and may just treat it as a B2B transaction.

Manxman_in_exile

Diamandis wrote: »

I was more thinking they are likely to be videos of a sexual nature.

The thought had crossed my mind...but I dismissed it immediately. Oh! There it is again...

waamo

Was there a written contract for this arrangement?

October868

Hello, the reason why I have stated that I was a Consumer is because that is what I deemed myself to be/what the defendant deemed me to be/and is a match to how the Consumer Rights Act describes a consumer; And so I don't want to lie to the judge by claiming that 'at the time of making this arrangement I was a business'.

I could state that I wasn't a consumer, and instead was a business, but the 1st question the judge could then ask me is-
''Ok please tell me the structure of what your business was at that time?''

But my answer to that would then have to be-
''Well I didn't actually own any sorta of website or ecommerce store at that time, nor did I own any stock to sell, nor did I have any customers linedup; I was simply an indivdual who was ordering a batch of custom-scripted videos (designed to my personal taste) and so for my personal viewing predominantly, but in my mind I also had the idea that I would like to hopefully try selling copies of these videos to other people over the future months/years (if I ever encountered anyone online who was also interested in the same specific style of these videos), which would thus help me recoup a portion of the cost of these videos''.

But so the judge would then likely ask why I had lied and tried to claim that I was running a business at that time, when the reality was that I was simply an individual who had a loose idea in my mind which had a business-element to it, but nothing else.

October868

waamo wrote: »

Was there a written contract for this arrangement?

All correspondence was made in writing via Twitter, so yes it was all in writing.
All prices agreed, specifics of contents, and everything else was agreed & confirmed in writing.

And so this also included a written agreement between myself and the defendant that I would have the right to sell copies of the videos online to other people if I wished to.

waamo

October868 wrote: »

Hello, the reason why I have stated that I was a Consumer is because that is what I deemed myself to be/what the defendant deemed me to be/and is a match to how the Consumer Rights Act describes a consumer; And so I don't want to lie to the judge by claiming that 'at the time of making this arrangement I was a business'.

I could state that I wasn't a consumer, and instead was a business, but the 1st question the judge could then ask me is-
''Ok please tell me the structure of what your business was at that time?''

But my answer to that would then have to be-
''Well I didn't actually own any sorta of website or ecommerce store at that time, nor did I own any stock to sell, nor did I have any customers linedup; I was simply an indivdual who was ordering a batch of custom-scripted videos (designed to my personal taste) and so for my personal viewing predominantly, but in my mind I also had the idea that I would like to hopefully try selling copies of these videos to other people over the future months/years (if I ever encountered anyone online who was also interested in the same specific style of these videos), which would thus help me recoup a portion of the cost of these videos''.

But so the judge would then likely ask why I had lied and tried to claim that I was running a business at that time, when the reality was that I was simply an individual who had a loose idea in my mind which had a business-element to it, but nothing else.

The judge won't go into fine detail. The contract says you can sell them on. That's probably all the judge needs to know.

October868

In regards to the details/particulars-

1. The defendant advertises her services online as a performer & producer of custom videos.
2. I contacted her and ordered a batch of custom-videos for myself, but with part of the agreement being that I would have the right to sell them myself to other people, which she agreed to.
3. She quoted me a price per video, I agreed to it, and placed an order initially for 1 video (but over the following weeks as we spoke lots & she seemed very friendly I increased that order upto 8-10 videos).
*I also said a few times during our online conversations that I would ideally be looking to order 50+ videos over the future months/years, but would want to firstly see how this 1st batch turned-out before I ordered/purchased any more.
4. She performed/produced 1/2 the quantity of clips (so upto the value of just under £1,500 on our agreed pricing), but then told me that she had spent the rest of the money on her own lifestyle/a holiday cruise/her household bills, and so stated she would need to repay me it via installments.
5. I agreed to this, requested a few times over a few days what amount per month and on what date per month she would make these repayments | She however ignored all my emails for the week, blocked me on Twitter then, and then emailed me saying she was no longer going to work with me anymore but that she would sue me and report me to the police if I ever sold the videos.
(And so just vanished, taking my money with her)
6. I gave her notice of my intention to file an Mcol claim, then the Mcol process started.

#

That all was 12-15 months ago.

Her defence now is that whilst she admits to having taken my money and not produced the clips, she says that if she had proceeded to produce 50+ videos for me over the future months years, that she would of earnt multiple thousands of pounds from that work, and thus that sum minus the £1,500 is the amount of money she is claiming as the core of her counterclaim.
She also works as a self-employed contractor for various companies, but she claims that because (approx 4months after I started the Mcol claim) she stopped working for one company and instead went to work for it's rival, that because there was a 2-month gap inbetween the 2 jobs apparently that I should be liable to pay her the money which she would've likely earned if company 1# had offered her work during that 2-month period.

My defence is that I had no 'obligation' to order future clips from her.
The mere fact that I stated a few times during converations that I would be 'interested/looking to order more' in future if the 1st batch went well, in no way legally-binds me to being obligated to make that hypothetical order if I then decide not to.
(As I could walk into a shop, say to the sales-person that I'm looking to order lots of stock from you today, be shown all the stock, but then decide that I don't wish to place any orders after all, and they couldn't force me to place an order just because I had said I would be looking to do so).
I've cited the Consumer Rights Act since none of the details of those hypothetical 50+ orders were even known (as they were just loose ideas in my own mind nothing more), but so I cannot be bound to order something for which I was unaware of the details of.

And in regards to stuff involving her own self-employment work for other companies, that doesn't involve me in any way, nor does that have any relevance to the particulars of this case.

#

She has now also filed her supporting evidence, as have I.
Mine shows in chronological order every written conversation in which she states/agrees prices that she will charge me, where she agrees she's happy to do this work, where she re-confirms prices multiple times, and shows that I never made any order for 50+ clips (merely mentioned a few times that If the 1st batch went well that I then in the future would be looking or place more orders, till I eventually had that total quantity)... ect

Her evidence is mainly just screenshots of people (mainly her friends) writing nasty/insulting messages to my Twitter (which I simply ignored / but which she screenshoted), along with screenshots of any nasty message which anyone has written to me/about me on twitter (so random people who neither of us ever met/and who are in no way involved to the particulars of this claim).
The most recent screenshots were taken last week, when she got 1 of her colleagues/and that person's boyfriend to write nasty insults about me on twitter.
She also has included screenshots of herself contacting other people who'm I have vague association with, and asking those people to disclose their 'bad stories' about me/calling me derogatory names herself in those conversations.

So in my N244 I have also requested the default-judgment to be set aside on the basis of that her counterclaim not only would be a breach of the Consumer Rights Legislation (as her claim would mean that I would've been forced to place orders for products which I didn't want to place orders for),
is vexatious + scurrilous, and is of no relevance whatsoever to the actual particulars of the matter, instead is simply a 'smear campaign' against me in which she's simply trying to create a collage of negative reviews & comments about me as a person (despite that being of no relevance to the financial agreements & transactions which took place between us over 1year prior).