The Dick Emery "I done it wrong again, Dad!" Thread!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hoddle is a god
  • Start date Start date
  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Commachio said:
Oh don't get me wrong mate, hiag is still a tone deaf flump, and i know **** all, or desire too about any bet.

I'm taking it as i see it.

You seen to be flustered by him tonight.
Click to expand...

Well, you're way off the mark mate. That's all I can say <ok>
 
haslam said:
Ok I'll help tidy this particular issue up. You are saying he intentionally misquoted you, how can you prove that?

Is it not just as likely that he misread your original post and then when he wrote it out you misread his?

Consensus ad idem my friend. I'm not sure there is any here, I'd argue that either there are two separate bets an you both won one and lost one or there is no bet at all as you never consistently agreed on what it was.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse him with legal talk mate <laugh>
 
Commachio said:
Ok mate, i'll pretend screenshot and quotegate, did'nt just happen.
Click to expand...

<laugh> Quotegate ffs

I only did that coz my crappy stream was slow so I switched pages as I didn't want to see any **** post the result of the pens in the Chelsea game.
 
PISKIE said:
<laugh> Quotegate ffs

I only did that coz my crappy stream was slow so I switched pages as I didn't want to see any **** post the result of the pens in the Chelsea game.
Click to expand...

[HASHTAG]#quotegate[/HASHTAG] [HASHTAG]#theplotthickens[/HASHTAG] [HASHTAG]#raging[/HASHTAG]
 
  • Like
Reactions: PINKIE
haslam said:
Where did the dogs thing come from?!?!?

The rest I accept of course.
Click to expand...

So HIAG's bet with G4E. He claims he misread G4E's final terms. In law, is that a valid excuse to release you from a contract ?
 
haslam said:
Ok I'll help tidy this particular issue up. You are saying he intentionally misquoted you, how can you prove that?

Is it not just as likely that he misread your original post and then when he wrote it out you misread his?

Consensus ad idem my friend. I'm not sure there is any here, I'd argue that either there are two separate bets an you both won one and lost one or there is no bet at all as you never consistently agreed on what it was.
Click to expand...

Dont get too technical with Hiag as he finds it difficult to read jargon.

i clearly stated the terms of my bet in plain English but poor old Hiag having lost the bet is now claiming that he failed to understand what was clearly written
[HASHTAG]#lawyermyarse[/HASHTAG]
 
PISKIE said:
So HIAG's bet with G4E. He claims he misread G4E's final terms. In law, is that a valid excuse to release you from a contract ?
Click to expand...

Well generally no but in fairness:

a) The terms were stated differently by each party and then each set of terms was accepted. It didn't state, or highlight in any way, that it was an altered or amended version of events so probably it would be agreed that neither set can be adhered to.

b) It depends on the relative bargaining power of the parties. If a big company put horrific terms in the small print then consumer law does protect the customers for having misread them (or ignored them entirely in my experience of consumers). Is that valid here? Well only if G4E or Hiag want to argue they are significantly disadvantaged over each other (perhaps mentally?)

c) Most importantly, and i cannot stress this enough, I did my legal training 15 years ago and stopped working as a solicitor 10 years ago so fukc knows if you can trust anything i say any more...
 
  • Like
Reactions: gooner4ever and Treble
gooner4ever said:
Dont get too technical with Hiag as he finds it difficult to read jargon.

i clearly stated the terms of my bet in plain English but poor old Hiag having lost the bet is now claiming that he failed to understand what was clearly written
[HASHTAG]#lawyermyarse[/HASHTAG]
Click to expand...

I haven't gone back an re-read all the thread / comments to be honest only the snippets that Piskie and HIAG have reposted recently. To me it looks vague at best but keep needling him as it is indeed funny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gooner4ever and PINKIE
haslam said:
Well generally no but in fairness:

a) The terms were stated differently by each party and then each set of terms was accepted. It didn't state, or highlight in any way, that it was an altered or amended version of events so probably it would be agreed that neither set can be adhered to.

b) It depends on the relative bargaining power of the parties. If a big company put horrific terms in the small print then consumer law does protect the customers for having misread them (or ignored them entirely in my experience of consumers). Is that valid here? Well only if G4E or Hiag want to argue they are significantly disadvantaged over each other (perhaps mentally?)

c) Most importantly, and i cannot stress this enough, I did my legal training 15 years ago and stopped working as a solicitor 10 years ago so fukc knows if you can trust anything i say any more...
Click to expand...

Well, let's just go with 'generally no' then.

So basically Kipper is ****ed <ok>
 
  • Like
Reactions: haslam
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back