Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

brianposter

unholyangel said:

The necessary elements are things like offer, acceptance, consideration, capacity, certainty, intent etc.

........................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................

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. 

So where, in the two cases that I have quoted, is the consideration ?

MH1927

Consideration can be a promise to pay.

shaun_from_Africa

brianposter said:

unholyangel said:

The necessary elements are things like offer, acceptance, consideration, capacity, certainty, intent etc.

........................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................

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. 

So where, in the two cases that I have quoted, is the consideration ?

"executory consideration" is the promise to provide consideration and by promising payment, you can been deemed to have fulfilled the contractual requirement of providing consideration for formation of the contract.

Now, why not stop beating around the bush and explain exactly what the problem is.

waamo

I'm beginning to think this is a fine bit of trolling.

Manxman_in_exile

brianposter said:

unholyangel said:

The necessary elements are things like offer, acceptance, consideration, capacity, certainty, intent etc.

........................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................

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. 

So where, in the two cases that I have quoted, is the consideration ?

So, where is your well-known example of a civil court in a libel case overturning the previous decision of a criminal court?

EDIT:  And why does it take nearly three pages of you posting cr*p and playing secret squirrel before you get to the point?

brianposter

Manxman_in_exile said:

So, where is your well-known example of a civil court in a libel case overturning the previous decision of a criminal court?

EDIT:  And why does it take nearly three pages of you posting cr*p and playing secret squirrel before you get to the point?

The point, as you put it, is in the title and first sentence of the thread.

As far as I am aware, nobody other an unholyangel has even been interested in discussing "the point", so I assume that others simply enjoy the discussion. I am quite happy to participate in such discussion as it can, and has been, educational.

Quite why some posters make posts which are both rude and ignorant is quite beyond me, but even then I suppose one learns something about human psychology.

As to the example of a libel case overturning a criminal conviction I have been unable to remember the relevant names, but as the cases date from the early 1980s that is not surprising. What surprises me is that nobody else seems to remember the cases, and, being pre-internet, they do not appear readily by simple searching..

Manxman_in_exile

brianposter said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

So, where is your well-known example of a civil court in a libel case overturning the previous decision of a criminal court?

EDIT:  And why does it take nearly three pages of you posting cr*p and playing secret squirrel before you get to the point?

The point, as you put it, is in the title and first sentence of the thread.

As far as I am aware, nobody other an unholyangel has even been interested in discussing "the point", so I assume that others simply enjoy the discussion. I am quite happy to participate in such discussion as it can, and has been, educational.

Quite why some posters make posts which are both rude and ignorant is quite beyond me, but even then I suppose one learns something about human psychology.

As to the example of a libel case overturning a criminal conviction I have been unable to remember the relevant names, but as the cases date from the early 1980s that is not surprising. What surprises me is that nobody else seems to remember the cases, and, being pre-internet, they do not appear readily by simple searching..

But as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, you are mistaken in pursuing the wrong point in your situation, which you seemed strangely reluctant to reveal for many posts.  Several posters - rather politely - tried to point out your error to you by explaining the difference between criminal and civil courts - which it would seem you still fail to grasp.

I am not surprised that neither you nor anyone else can recall the example of a libel case where the decision overturned a criminal conviction.  I suspect that is probably because it never happened.  If it did, please enlighten me as I'd really like to know, and will happily apologise for saying it couldn't happen  (I'm pretty certain such an unusual case would not need the internet to find details about it).

This thread does reveal much about human psychology - just not what you think it does...

DoaM

A civil case between 2 parties can come to a different conclusion than a criminal case between the same parties ... that was already confirmed earlier in the thread (balance of probabilities vs beyond reasonable doubt). The outcome of a civil case though does not and cannot overturn the verdict of a criminal case.

unholyangel

brianposter said:

unholyangel said:

The necessary elements are things like offer, acceptance, consideration, capacity, certainty, intent etc.

........................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................

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. 

So where, in the two cases that I have quoted, is the consideration ?

You agree to pay (for example) £300, that is your consideration. The other party agrees to provide a x sized vehicle for x duration, that is their consideration.  

shaun_from_Africa

Before 2010, there was an offence of criminal libel so I suppose that It may have been possible for the outcome of a libel trial to have an effect on a previously heard criminal case providing that the libel case was run under criminal law but this is vastly different to the claim that:

brianposter said:
it is not unusual to use a civil court libel case to overturn a criminal court verdict 

and surely if it was "not unusual", finding proof of at least one instance shouldn't be difficult.