Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
Posts
-
Okay I see, thank you -
it wont hurt mediation, they will not be the least bit interested in a legal argument, not their bag. -
Thank you so much for the response. Been studying up on all threads related, as adviced. I'm just a tiny bit stuck on when would be the most appropriate time to amend the document, and how this could be done realistically. Like you said, it's a small technicality and they are fully aware of the claim. I just want to rid them of any excuse before my mediation (scheduled 11/12/23)
-
I think the reasonable thing to do is to explain to the court that the real problem here is a technicality and that you should be permitted to amend the claim to reflect the correct identity of the defendant. You've already pointed out quite correctly that they have provided a detailed defence so they are fully aware of the claim.
-
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
-
Our picks
-
Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available
BankFodder posted a post in a topic,
We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.
The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.
Frankly I don't think that is any accident.
One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.
Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.
We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
This is good ethical practice.
It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.
OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
-
-
Post in Some advice on buying a used car
BankFodder posted a post in a topic,
Post in Some advice on buying a used car
-
-
Post in Some advice on buying a used car
BankFodder posted a post in a topic,
People are still buying used cars unseen, paying by cash or by bank transfer, relying on brand-new MOT's by the dealer's favourite MOT station….
It always leads to tears!
used car.mp4
-
-
Pizza delivery insurance
BankFodder posted a topic in Postal and Delivery Services,
Pizza delivery insurance.mp4
Parcel delivery insurance 1.mp4-
-
- 2 replies
-
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
Shop Direct takes action against Phoenix Recoveries
style="text-align: center;">
Thread Locked
because no one has posted on it for the last 5285 days.
If you need to add something to this thread then
Please click the "Report " link
at the bottom of one of the posts.
If you want to post a new story then
Please
Start your own new thread
That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help
Thanks
-
Recently Browsing 0 Caggers
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Have we helped you ...?
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:- 923 Finchley Road
London NW11 7PE
Recommended Posts