MSE in court,,,

Rex_Mundi

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

Note, I have the Media rights to this story

Whilst I've been growing more bored with this saga. I'm intensely curious to know who you have lined up for the part of MD in the forthcoming movie.

Could I suggest an entirely British affair?

MD: Mr Bean
Upcoming judge: Victor (I don't believe it) Meldrew
Court Usher: Jeeves (of Jeeves and Wooster fame)
MDs spokesman to the press outside court: Alf Garnet

I think you could have a hit on your hands Freddie!

mdbarber

Rex_Mundi wrote: »

Whilst I've been growing more bored with this saga. I'm intensely curious to know who you have lined up for the part of MD in the forthcoming movie.

Could I suggest an entirely British affair?

MD: Mr Bean
Upcoming judge: Victor (I don't believe it) Meldrew
Court Usher: Jeeves (of Jeeves and Wooster fame)
MDs spokesman to the press outside court: Alf Garnet

I think you could have a hit on your hands Freddie!

Pretty much sums it up rex, can only assume as mr bean is a fictional character and this is a case of fact you really do have problems separating the two.
As for bored, do you consider we are here for your entertainment?

Tozer wrote: »

OK. So what's the issue? Presumably the company would have refunded postage costs if they tested the item and it proved faulty?

Starting proceedings when it appears there was still dialogue completely flies in the face of the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules which is to avoid litigation.

An after thought tozer, can you please point me to a link of the write up you are referring to of the civil procedure rules, the one i've seen makes no mention of avoiding litigation, simply encouraging alternate dispute resolution.

Tozer

mdbarber wrote: »

Pretty much sums it up rex, can only assume as mr bean is a fictional character and this is a case of fact you really do have problems separating the two.
As for bored, do you consider we are here for your entertainment?



An after thought tozer, can you please point me to a link of the write up you are referring to of the civil procedure rules, the one i've seen makes no mention of avoiding litigation, simply encouraging alternate dispute resolution.

Its Part 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Practice Directions and case law have construed the overriding objective as a very onerous duty.

mdbarber

Tozer wrote: »

Its Part 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Practice Directions and case law have construed the overriding objective as a very onerous duty.

Sure but what i asked was where did you get that interpretation? because the reference i've been using was from here and makes no mention of avoiding litigation.
In fact what you are actually implying seems contradictory, as avoiding litigation means no judge getting involved, so how then would the courts be in a position to direct that?

Tozer

mdbarber wrote: »

Sure but what i asked was where did you get that interpretation? because the reference i've been using was from here and makes no mention of avoiding litigation.
In fact what you are actually implying seems contradictory, as avoiding litigation means no judge getting involved, so how then would the courts be in a position to direct that?

Err its pretty basic civil procedure. there is no contradiction whatsoever as the duty is ongoing.

All of the parties to a dispute are bound to avoid litigation if possible and to reduce costs and delays. The Court is also bound to apply the overriding objective in ordering, for example, a stay of proceedings if there is an opportunity for settlement discussions, ADR or otherwise. I suspect that is the legal basis for the suspension of bank charge reclaim cases whilst the test case was proceeding.

Freddie_Snowbits

Rex_Mundi wrote: »

I think you could have a hit on your hands Freddie!

I think Rex could be the Screenwriter

mdbarber wrote: »

mr bean is a fictional character

Only the names will change to protect the Guilty

No the question, do we film in Black and White, use 16:9 format, or just use a phone cam?
:beer: :beer: :beer:

Oh, nearly forgtot, what about the extras

grayme-m

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

Oh, nearly forgtot, what about the extras

Us lot or do you mean on the DVD (like the director's cut and missing scenes?)

Rex_Mundi

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

I think Rex could be the Screenwriter

Thank you Freddie. I think I've nailed the opening scene..

Background noise. WHACK! THUD! THUMP!

Cut camera to the principle character and move shot into the car as we find him using a four pound club hammer to line his brand new car stereo flush with the dashboard. Principle smiling to himself as he's swinging the hammer back and forward for finding such a nifty short cut for this tricky job. :rotfl:

Freddie_Snowbits

Rex_Mundi wrote: »

Background noise. WHACK! THUD! THUMP!

Rex, we now need a sound effects engineer, can anyone out there can help us?
:beer: :beer: :beer:

mdbarber

oh you guys are sooooo hilarious, i really should thank you for the bumps btw