Has that been shown to be true? That this was secondhand? Or was it one which was previously made but not delivered or something like that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninanina
Printable View
Has that been shown to be true? That this was secondhand? Or was it one which was previously made but not delivered or something like that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninanina
Totally wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulStewart
Have we had the judgement posted up? I haven't been through the whole thread so it is a genuine question.
I guess there is a danger in arguing without the absolute facts in front of us, and that also discounts the statements of those directly involved who obviously have their own interests and beliefs colouring their views.
Baliffs are baliffs. They are only officers of the court if the court has instructed them to act. I'm not sure that is the case here is it? Might be, but I got the impression not. My boss is pursuing someone for unpaid invoices, has been to mediation meetings via small claims courts and had judgments against the guy... but all action he's taken to chase the money has had to have been private, not instructed by the court, and that for more money than at stake here (yet still under the small claims threshold). I find that when I read people talking about small claims and what they think the judgement has been etc etc, many people make wrongful assumptions because they are understandably new to the whole process.
Also I think people get mightily confused between civil law and criminal law - to most people the "law is the law". Civil matters are quite different and even sticking to the terms of a judgement isn't necessary if the situation is resolved via compromise so that people are satisfied, it's called settlement. That could have happened long long long ago if it weren't for the protagonist's attitudes..
How the hell "oh, this hasn't got a remote like I asked!" and some damaged-in-transit valves got to this stage blows my mind!
One thing I am sure of from reading some of this is that BOTH the people involved have only themselves to blame ! Such idiots in my humble opinion - pride and stubborness can make people look supremely stupid.
Quite so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Audio Advent
From the start I thought we were getting half a story and nothing I have read since has convinced me that I have seen enough to condemn either party more than the other. The power to communicate is what got humans to where we are but clearly, we are going backwards if this is an example.
Guys, now that the amp has been fully assessed, and fixed, it will indeed (in due course) be getting auctioned, with the proceeds from that donated to charity. That arrangement was agreed between the seller and I some time back.
Therefore, I don't wish to regurgitate the argument of 'who's to blame' for this incident, and for the discussion, in that respect, to go round and round in circles, so I think it's time to close this one now, pending an announcement in due course as to how the auction will be conducted and when it will take place.
Marco.
I'd suggest those commenting on this situation read the entire thread before doing so.
But I am feeling charitable so here is a précis
The matter has been to court three times, including the High Court. All three times the Court found in favour of the plaintiff.
The Plaintiff is owed a full refund of what he paid plus costs. That was the High Court decision, based on the evidence presented by both sides.
Settlement or recovery, despite a High Court writ, have proven impossible.
The plaintiff is fed up of the whole issue and wants the amp gone. He has agreed it will be fixed and sold for charity. He will remain out of pocket.