Model Boat Mayhem

Mess Deck: General Section => Chit-Chat => Topic started by: TheLongBuild on November 19, 2013, 12:30:13 am

Title: A case for reading the small print
Post by: TheLongBuild on November 19, 2013, 12:30:13 am
 {:-{

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-24992518

Title: Re: A case for reading the small print
Post by: tritsch on November 19, 2013, 05:52:25 am
Quite interesting, I would have thought that as they hadn't supplied the goods and the purchaser couldn't get in touch with them that they had broken the contract first and that therefore there was no contract in place when he commented on them. - but mebbe this is just logic not legal

Tony Tritsch
Title: Re: A case for reading the small print
Post by: RAAArtyGunner on November 19, 2013, 10:25:00 am
Tony,
 
My take on it is, Yes, that there was a contract in place, albeit it was not adhered to, actually it was breached.
 
Experience is a good teacher, I refuse to sign anything until I have read the fine print and am happy with the contents therein.
 
The biggest con, is the oft quoted comment, if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to worry about as it wont affect you,  wrong wrong wrong. <*< >>:-(
Title: Re: A case for reading the small print
Post by: derekwarner on November 19, 2013, 10:48:55 am
100% correct Guys.........& some of the worst offenders or obnoxious groups in OZ are the telecommunication's service providers................ >>:-( <*< Derek
Title: Re: A case for reading the small print
Post by: TheLongBuild on November 19, 2013, 01:09:08 pm
Assume his lawyer was not very good, reading it again and as mentioned above, The sale was voided as paypal refunded due to non delivery, so In my eyes no contract existed anymore.  Also it was his wife who posted the comments not the buyer..
 
Also a clause like that, does it not inhibit the freedom of speech so therefore unlawful in its self ?.