HELP WITH CASE LAWS PLEASE: commercial litigation

[MNNN]

Could anyone out there please help me find corresponding case laws to the following:

 

1. Case law for misrepresentation: the Defendant gave a false name throughout our dealings. This lead the Claimant to initiate research under the given name which lead to no associated Directorships and also lead to findings of online positive reviews. The Claimant induced the contract upon these flawless findings. After the Claimant initiated Court Proceedings the Defendants real name was exposed. Research under the real name (a) lead to many associated Directorships (all of dissolved shambolic companies) and (b) lead to genuine reviews of the Defendant which advise others against doing business with them; their stories show great similarities to how the Claimant has suffered.

 

2. Case law for misrepresentation: false positive online reviews using Defendants false name. These are the only positive reviews that can be found online. All the reviews can be traced back to the Defendant and their family members who all give false business names and addresses. The Claimant induced the contract upon these false claims.

 

3. Case law for misrepresentation: the Defendant gave a long list of high end famous clients and claimed that they had all "benefitted" from working with them, even stating it on their website. Following the Claimant taking references from the said clients, they all confirmed they had never benefitted from working with the Defendant and that their businesses hugely suffered as a result of working with them. Furthermore, they had all confirmed they worked with the Director of the company but not with the company in question as the website stated. Following court proceedings, the page on the website has since been completely removed. This is the primary reason why the Claimant induced the contract.

 

4. Case law for blackmail/extortion: The Defendant demanded payment yet did not let the Claimant quality check the goods. The Defendant demanded payment for prices which far exceeded those that had been agreed (thousands of pounds more) and for quantities which far exceeded the quantities that had been agreed (over 200 hundred more). The Defendant allowed the Claimant to remove a small quantity of goods under the agreement that the Claimant write an agreement, under duress confirming that they would pay all the monies. Once the Claimant was given the chance to quality check the small quantity of goods, the Claimant begged the Defendant to stop production. The Defendant then confirmed they had stopped production yet demanded payment for all the products on their purported invoice . The Defendant informed the Claimant that if they did not pay their purported invoice they would move premises and would never be found again. Two weeks after, the Claimant recordered the Defendant confirming that "a lot" of products had not been made yet Defendant refused to give actual quantities and continued to demand payment for all the goods. After court proceedings commenced the Defendant confirmed in their Defence that all the products had been made. A year after they submitted their Defence the Defendant confirmed in a "without prejudice" document that most the garments had been "merely cut", "very few" had been made and that the Claimant had taken most the products (the Claimant has proof in email that the Defendant has all of the products).

 

5. Case law for breach of contract: the Defendant denies in their Defence that the goods were to be made to a high quality. The goods in the Claimants possession are an incredibly low quality. The Claimant has concrete evidence via email correspondence that the Defendant agreed to make them to a high quality.

[Ganymede]

It may sound obvious but have you tried Google, Baillie or even going to your local library?

 

As for the blackmail/extortion caselaw, that is a criminal matter so not sure what you want out of that one...

[42man]

Has the person been convicted of any criminal activity ? you need to be careful that the claim doesn't backfire in a civil court (as opposed to a criminal court)

[MNNN]

Has the person been convicted of any criminal activity ? you need to be careful that the claim doesn't backfire in a civil court (as opposed to a criminal court)

 

hello, thank you for your post. I do not know if they have ever been convicted of any criminal activity in the past.

[MNNN]

It may sound obvious but have you tried Google, Baillie or even going to your local library?

 

As for the blackmail/extortion caselaw, that is a criminal matter so not sure what you want out of that one...

 

Thank you for your post. I spent a full day yesterday researching case laws, however the ones that I have read do not cover the grounds of false advertisement and false names.

 

My apologies regarding the blackmail/extortion case law, I was not aware this was entirely a criminal matter: for this point I think I shall simply state the facts and supply the evidence and leave the rest to the Judge.

[42man]

I'm not expert but I think you should also look at Tort Law too...

[The Mould]

Could anyone out there please help me find corresponding case laws to the following:

 

1. Case law for misrepresentation: the Defendant gave a false name throughout our dealings. This lead the Claimant to initiate research under the given name which lead to no associated Directorships and also lead to findings of online positive reviews. The Claimant induced the contract upon these flawless findings. After the Claimant initiated Court Proceedings the Defendants real name was exposed. Research under the real name (a) lead to many associated Directorships (all of dissolved shambolic companies) and (b) lead to genuine reviews of the Defendant which advise others against doing business with them; their stories show great similarities to how the Claimant has suffered.

 

2. Case law for misrepresentation: false positive online reviews using Defendants false name. These are the only positive reviews that can be found online. All the reviews can be traced back to the Defendant and their family members who all give false business names and addresses. The Claimant induced the contract upon these false claims.

 

3. Case law for misrepresentation: the Defendant gave a long list of high end famous clients and claimed that they had all "benefitted" from working with them, even stating it on their website. Following the Claimant taking references from the said clients, they all confirmed they had never benefitted from working with the Defendant and that their businesses hugely suffered as a result of working with them. Furthermore, they had all confirmed they worked with the Director of the company but not with the company in question as the website stated. Following court proceedings, the page on the website has since been completely removed. This is the primary reason why the Claimant induced the contract.

 

4. Case law for blackmail/extortion: The Defendant demanded payment yet did not let the Claimant quality check the goods. The Defendant demanded payment for prices which far exceeded those that had been agreed (thousands of pounds more) and for quantities which far exceeded the quantities that had been agreed (over 200 hundred more). The Defendant allowed the Claimant to remove a small quantity of goods under the agreement that the Claimant write an agreement, under duress confirming that they would pay all the monies. Once the Claimant was given the chance to quality check the small quantity of goods, the Claimant begged the Defendant to stop production. The Defendant then confirmed they had stopped production yet demanded payment for all the products on their purported invoice . The Defendant informed the Claimant that if they did not pay their purported invoice they would move premises and would never be found again. Two weeks after, the Claimant recordered the Defendant confirming that "a lot" of products had not been made yet Defendant refused to give actual quantities and continued to demand payment for all the goods. After court proceedings commenced the Defendant confirmed in their Defence that all the products had been made. A year after they submitted their Defence the Defendant confirmed in a "without prejudice" document that most the garments had been "merely cut", "very few" had been made and that the Claimant had taken most the products (the Claimant has proof in email that the Defendant has all of the products).

 

5. Case law for breach of contract: the Defendant denies in their Defence that the goods were to be made to a high quality. The goods in the Claimants possession are an incredibly low quality. The Claimant has concrete evidence via email correspondence that the Defendant agreed to make them to a high quality.

 

Good afternoon MNNN Watson

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1965/2.html

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1956/5.html

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1954/8.html

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1926/1.html

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1976/4.html

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/386.html

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1889/1.html

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1963/4.html

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd021106/pakist-1.htm

(in the above House of Lords case, MNNN, the agent acting for the company was held personally liable)

There’s a few authorities (for now Watson) for you to sit up in bed with past the midnight hour, where you will learn the legalities of the subject of misrepresentation and destroy the Defendant with powerful and established law.

Godzilla Watson

Kind Regards

The Mould