Viewing Thread:
"Goatboy is a sucker"

I'll let him tell you why. I laughed...

Goatboy wrote:

"True, however seeing as the intial offer of services was not intended as a financial transaction,it falls under the "Supply of Goods and Services Act:Ammendment 1994" rather than the main legislate."

"C'mon Ironside,try harder."

Gah.

Ok, how about the description of goods itself? As the original passage refers to goods and not services?


'goods' includes all personal chattels, other than things in action and money, and as regards Scotland all corporeal moveables; and in particular 'goods' includes emblements, industrial growing crops, and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before the transfer bailment or hire concerned or under the contract concerned;


Or basically saying, if you can move it, it's goods. You can't move power.

Has this got anything to do with a prossie that wouldn't give out when she saw your mangled willy, and then scarpered with your cash?

I thought contact was better. Reach out and touch someone. (Or wind them up, more fun).

Grix Thraves wrote:
> However...

21. Sale by person not the owner

{ 121 }
(1) Subject to
> this Act where goods are sold by a person who is not their owner and who does
> not sell them under the authority or with the consent of the owner, the buyer
> acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had, unless the owner of
> the goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the seller's authority to
> sell.
{ 122 }
(2) Nothing in this Act affects
{ 123 }
(a) the
> provisions of the Factors Acts or any enactment enabling the apparent owner of
> goods to dispose of them as if he were their true owner;
{ 124 }
(b) the
> validity of any contract of sale under any special common law or statutory power
> of sale or under the order of a court of competent jurisdiction.


Ali has
> no grant over what happens in the forums, I believe his work does not carry
> that, or in the least, he must run through all additions to the site with Tony,
> or Webmaster.

So if he has no right to exchange these services, then the
> contact is considered void.

----

True, however seeing as the intial offer of services was not intended as a financial transaction,it falls under the "Supply of Goods and Services Act:Ammendment 1994" rather than the main legislate.

C'mon Ironside,try harder.

Glad we got that sorted.

Contract, even.

Short version of joke:

Someone tried to wind me up, which is cool. Except by doing so in the manner in which it occured, there is now a legally binding agreement between a seller and consumner, as agreed under the listed sections of the act, annoted in 1994.

Said act states that the "offer of goods and services lies implicitly in agreement between vendor and consumner, and upon acceptance of agreed terms with written confirmation and acceptance communicated, then said agreement shall now be legally recognised as contract of law"

And now I'm going home to eat and read stuff and post crap here.

Excellent

However...

21. Sale by person not the owner

{ 121 }
(1) Subject to this Act where goods are sold by a person who is not their owner and who does not sell them under the authority or with the consent of the owner, the buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had, unless the owner of the goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the seller's authority to sell.
{ 122 }
(2) Nothing in this Act affects
{ 123 }
(a) the provisions of the Factors Acts or any enactment enabling the apparent owner of goods to dispose of them as if he were their true owner;
{ 124 }
(b) the validity of any contract of sale under any special common law or statutory power of sale or under the order of a court of competent jurisdiction.


Ali has no grant over what happens in the forums, I believe his work does not carry that, or in the least, he must run through all additions to the site with Tony, or Webmaster.

So if he has no right to exchange these services, then the contact is considered void.

Yes, let us in on the joke or I'll let this thread start to slide to the bottom of the pile.

Oh damn...

Armatige Shanks wrote:
> What the hell am I missing here?

:)

well whatever it is i am missing it as well.