Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

shaun_from_Africa

brianposter said:

The point I am making is that a civil court can make decisions on matters that have already been decided by a criminal court, and therefore it is unlikely they are  precluded from making decisions on matters that have never been decided in a criminal court.

The civil court will not be making decisions on matters already decided in a criminal court.
A civil court cannot make a legal ruling on something that is concerned with criminal law simply because civil and criminal law are two entirely different things, dealt with in entirely different ways. 
In the example you give, a libel case cannot be heard in a criminal court simply because libel is not a criminal offence so whatever the outcome of a civil case, this can't have any effect on a criminal finding that someone is guilty of libel because no such finding is possible.

stragglebod

brianposter said:

I am hoping that unholyangel will be back to clarify matters.

I am hoping that you will be back to clarify matters.

bris

brianposter said:

bris said:

You still haven't said what the problem was, drip feeding isn't going to solve your problem.

Did you make a mistake with the dates? What was unfair about the contract?

They insisted on providing a car for a shorter period than that for which they had accepted the booking.

TBH after all the unnecessary tripe the op is posting we still don't really know what the issue is. It's either a simple breach of contract or it isn't . After all this there is still no real information on the problem.

What we have been told doesn't indicate unfair trading more just a mix up in the contracts timescales but without seeing this contract and the companies T&C's it's impossible to say.

Manxman_in_exile

brianposter said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

brianposter said:

As far as I am aware it is not unusual to use a civil court libel case to overturn a criminal court verdict ie what you regard as not practical does occur in reality.

It would appear that courts treat cases on their own merit.

You are talking utter tosh.  A civil court CANNOT affect or overturn the verdict in a criminal case. 

What you may be attempting to refer to is the sort of situation where somebody is acquitted of a criminal offence by a criminal court, but is then sued by the "victim" in the civil courts*, and loses.   This has absolutely nothing to do with the civil court "overturning" the decision in the criminal court, it's because criminal courts work to a standard of reasonable doubt whereas civil courts work to the much less strict standard of balance of probability.  Just because a defendant loses a civil case does not make them criminally guilty.

A civil court can't make somebody guilty of a criminal offence.  Has your hire company been convicted in a criminal court?

*Some jurists believe that in this sort of case, the civil court ought to work to a reasonable doubt standard too.

The point I am making is that a civil court can make decisions on matters that have already been decided by a criminal court, and therefore it is unlikely that they are  precluded from making decisions on matters that have never been decided in a criminal court.

I was actually thinking of cases where somebody is convicted in a criminal court and then sues for libel in the civil court with a result that the civil court decides that the criminal court conviction is erroneous. Per se, it does not overturn the conviction but in practice the result is normally exactly that.

What are you talking about??? 

Can you give an example where this has happened?  That is, someone has been convicted of a criminal offence, and then a civil court in a case of libel (brought by that person) has decided they weren't guilty at all?

EDIT:  And in any case, you are actually arguing the opposite - insofar as I can understand your argument at all.  You're saying a civil court can find somebody guilty of a criminal offence without criminal proceedings.  Rubbish!

wealdroam

brianposter said:

As far as I am aware it is not unusual to use a civil court libel case to overturn a criminal court verdict ie what you regard as not practical does occur in reality.

Libel?? How does that fit in with your hire car scenario?

What 'criminal court verdict' are you seeking to overturn?

brianposter

bris said:

It's either a simple breach of contract or it isn't .

If you find contract law so simple perhaps you could clarify two questions for me.

If I make an internet booking but am not asked for any payment, do I have a contract with the supplier ?

If I make an internet booking and make no payment but supply a credit card number, is there a contract with that supplier ?

waamo

brianposter said:

bris said:

It's either a simple breach of contract or it isn't .

If you find contract law so simple perhaps you could clarify two questions for me.

If I make an internet booking but am not asked for any payment, do I have a contract with the supplier ?

If I make an internet booking and make no payment but supply a credit card number, is there a contract with that supplier ?

Are we talking hypothetically here or what actually happened? Instead of beating around the bush with pointless points and questions why don't you explain what happened and let's see if we can collectively come up with a solution?

brianposter

waamo said:

brianposter said:

bris said:

It's either a simple breach of contract or it isn't .

If you find contract law so simple perhaps you could clarify two questions for me.

If I make an internet booking but am not asked for any payment, do I have a contract with the supplier ?

If I make an internet booking and make no payment but supply a credit card number, is there a contract with that supplier ?

Are we talking hypothetically here or what actually happened? Instead of beating around the bush with pointless points and questions why don't you explain what happened and let's see if we can collectively come up with a solution?

Because, to come up with a solution, you need to know something about the Consumer Protection regulations - which is suggested in the first sentence of this thread. So far, nobody has intimated any relevant knowledge.

That does not mean that that other points are not interesting. but they are unlikely to be relevant to any action which I might take. Simply as a matter of interest I would like to know the answers to the questions I have asked of Bris.

waamo

If you wish to focus on irrelevant points thats your prerogative but I don't think many people will be able to assist when you wish to take them down a blind alley.

unholyangel

brianposter said:

bris said:

It's either a simple breach of contract or it isn't .

If you find contract law so simple perhaps you could clarify two questions for me.

If I make an internet booking but am not asked for any payment, do I have a contract with the supplier ?

If I make an internet booking and make no payment but supply a credit card number, is there a contract with that supplier ?

Making payment has no bearing on contract formation. Making or offering payment is performing the contract. Although sometimes acceptance can be conditional upon other matters, including payment. 

The necessary elements are things like offer, acceptance, consideration, capacity, certainty, intent etc. There must be an offer with each party receiving a benefit in exchange for a detriment. There must be acceptance of the offer. The acceptance must be positive action/communicated (silence cannot amount to acceptance but conduct can). It must match the terms of the offer exactly or it will not be acceptance, but a counter offer - which destroys the original offer (so cannot later be accepted). An offer can be withdrawn at any point before acceptance. The consideration does not have to be market value but must be something of value & must not be past (something which has already occurred). The consideration must pass from one party to the other. 

If you can give more info, perhaps we can point you in the right direction.