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

[PINKIE]

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.

In a nutshell, they were both suggesting terms for a bet. Kipper took 'you're on' to mean that was the terms finalised, but G4E then proposed the final terms, which HIAG then agreed.

Now he realised he's lost the bet, Kipper is trying to rewind the clock to an earlier time to claim his terms were the ones agreed upon.

 

[Commachio]

I've found @PISKIE a real lawyer.

I've known Haslam for year, he maybe a horse punching dog shagging **** from Mordor. But he's fairly straight for an Orc

 

[PINKIE]

I've found @PISKIE a real lawyer.

I've known Haslam for year, he maybe a horse punching dog shagging **** from Mordor. But he's fairly straight for an Orc

Seems to know his onions too.

Kipper is going to have a fit when he finds out a real Lawyer has screwed him over.

 

[Treble]

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...

I compared it to like drawing up a Will earlier. Basically the Will is made and agreed. Then the Will is updated so the current one stands. Is that comparable Haslam, I think so.

But worst case scenario, both are separate bets agreed or neither valid as you've said.

 

[haslam]

In a nutshell, they were both suggesting terms for a bet. Kipper took 'you're on' to mean that was the terms finalised, but G4E then proposed the final terms, which HIAG then agreed.

Now he realised he's lost the bet, he's trying to rewind the clock to an earlier time to claim his terms were the ones agreed upon.

Ah ok well in a nutshell, based on what i recall:

A contract is made by
1 Offer
2 Acceptance
3 A meeting of the minds (consensus ad idem)
4 Consideration (something being offered/ given by both sides)
5 An intention for it to be legally binding

Here G4E is arguing that HIAG made an offer and then he made a counter-offer which HIAG accepted. It's a valid argument to make (I'll ignore other interpretations of events if you want).

 

[PINKIE]

Ah ok well in a nutshell, based on what i recall:

A contract is made by
1 Offer
2 Acceptance
3 A meeting of the minds (consensus ad idem)
4 Consideration (something being offered/ given by both sides)
5 An intention for it to be legally binding

Here G4E is arguing that HIAG made an offer and then he made a counter-offer which HIAG accepted. It's a valid argument to make (I'll ignore other interpretations of events if you want).

I think that's about the measure of it mate.

 

[PINKIE]

I compared it to like drawing up a Will earlier. Basically the Will is made and agreed. Then the Will is updated so the current one stands. Is that comparable Haslam, I think so.

But worst case scenario, both are separate bets agreed or neither valid as you've said.

It's more like the former. Both agreed in principle to a bet. i.e. 'You're on' and terms of that bet were debated, G4E then amended the final terms and Kipper agreed to them.

If he had a problem with those terms, he should have raised it at the time. Not once he's lost the bet

 

[haslam]

I compared it to like drawing up a Will earlier. Basically the Will is made and agreed. Then the Will is updated so the current one stands. Is that comparable Haslam, I think so.

But worst case scenario, both are separate bets agreed or neither valid as you've said.

It's a similar concept yes. The key difference just being that a normal contract is bilateral (two parties agreeing on something) whereas a will is unilateral (one party putting forward something). I'm sure there's other things as well but it's late and the law isn't as fresh in my mind as it used to be!

 

[Commachio]

Seems to know his onions too.

Kipper is going to have a fit when he finds out a real Lawyer has screwed him over.

Ah ok well in a nutshell, based on what i recall:

A contract is made by
1 Offer
2 Acceptance
3 A meeting of the minds (consensus ad idem)
4 Consideration (something being offered/ given by both sides)
5 An intention for it to be legally binding

Here G4E is arguing that HIAG made an offer and then he made a counter-offer which HIAG accepted. It's a valid argument to make (I'll ignore other interpretations of events if you want).

Told you so mate.

 

[PINKIE]

It's a similar concept yes. The key difference just being that a normal contract is bilateral (two parties agreeing on something) whereas a will is unilateral (one party putting forward something). I'm sure there's other things as well but it's late and the law isn't as fresh in my mind as it used to be!

I think the salient point here is that both parties negotiated and discussed the terms and agreed on the final draft.

 

[Commachio]

what have i done

 

[haslam]

I used to draft wills when i first started (there's no real money in drafting wills tbh so they tend to give all the basic ones to juniors; the probate is where the money is at so firms just try to bank as many wills as they can). Had one old fruitbat who was adamant she was not going to let her sister have a penny more than her from her mothers estate - they were sharing over £800k and ended up both saying to give £20-30k to charity as they were terrified the other party were going to end up getting their hands on it. I really did meet some very unreasonable people.

 

[Treble]

It's more like the former. Both agreed in principle to a bet. i.e. 'You're on' and terms of that bet were debated, G4E then amended the final terms and Kipper agreed to them.

If he had a problem with those terms, he should have raised it at the time. Not once he's lost the bet

I think this has raised a real conundrum on the scale of an agreeable Brexit withdrawal agreement.

It might be worth throwing both G4E and HIAG into the politics thread to fight it out and see who comes out alive? That's the winner of the bet!

 

[haslam]

I've found @PISKIE a real lawyer.

I've known Haslam for year, he maybe a horse punching dog shagging **** from Mordor. But he's fairly straight for an Orc

Not even sure how long I've been posting almost solely on the Sunderland board. Must be 6-7 years?

In all that time that's probably the nicest thing Comm has ever said about me. Twat!

 

[PINKIE]

I think this has raised a real conundrum on the scale of an agreeable Brexit withdrawal agreement.

It might be worth throwing both G4E and HIAG into the politics thread to fight it out and see who comes out alive? That's the winner of the bet!

I just don't think HIAG read the terms of the bet properly. He did the same thing with a bet with @FosseFilberto and welched that one too.

Is stupidity really a defence ?

 

[Treble]

I used to draft wills when i first started (there's no real money in drafting wills tbh so they tend to give all the basic ones to juniors; the probate is where the money is at so firms just try to bank as many wills as they can). Had one old fruitbat who was adamant she was not going to let her sister have a penny more than her from her mothers estate - they were sharing over £800k and ended up both saying to give £20-30k to charity as they were terrified the other party were going to end up getting their hands on it. I really did meet some very unreasonable people.

I bet there's a fck of a lot more in matrimonial! I once lost a house because the bitch took the sale all the way to exchange of contracts then pulled out just to fck off her ex-husband!

I burnt her house down

 

[haslam]

Ok I'm going to bed. Obviously play nice in my absence.

 

[Commachio]

@PISKIE if you need to know anything about the folks on here mate, just asl, i'll point you in the right direction.

Now you have a proper lawyer (just feed him greggs.

 

[PINKIE]

Ok I'm going to bed. Obviously play nice in my absence.

Fair play mate. I think you've been very balanced with your appraisal of this bet.

HIAG's going to have a fit when he finds out a real Lawyer has nobbled him, but there we go. He should have read the terms properly.

 

[Treble]

I just don't think HIAG read the terms of the bet properly. He did the same thing with a bet with @FosseFilberto and welched that one too.

Is stupidity really a defence ?

Not in criminal law. Haslam to confirm.

On Not606 most definitely, and quite often.