Gladys Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 Just now, Ringy Rose said: Walking out of Tesco without paying for your shopping is a contractual dispute, by that logic. Not really, that would be theft. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Gladys said: Not really, that would be theft. “Under the terms of the contract I agreed to pay you for my shopping but I didn’t supply the cash to you on time and to the standards as agreed under our contract”. It’s really just an unfulfilled contract or an unpaid bill. Contractual dispute. Edited July 24 by Ringy Rose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 17 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said: “Under the terms of the contract I agreed to pay you for my shopping but I didn’t supply the cash to you on time and to the standards as agreed under our contract”. It’s really just an unfulfilled contract or an unpaid bill. Contractual dispute. Yeah but did you sign a contract when you walked into Tesco? Sorry, but that's absurd. Doug & Shell supplied the goods and got paid. Under some small print, they were not triple bagged for sterilization. This allegedly made them not fit for purpose. I find it unlikely they purposely decided to omit some packaging as part of some fraudulent plan. Don't get me wrong, she's lied about her involvement and links. But the products were supplied using normal manufacturing, trading channels and offshore structures. It's similar to the water slides at the NSC. They were supplied but weren't to spec and didn't fit. Was that fraud? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTail Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 If the supplier of the slide knew in advance that it was not fit for purpose. Overcharged for the slide and miss represented the people purporting to sell the slide. Well I reckon fraud is likely. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 (edited) 1 hour ago, NoTail said: If the supplier of the slide knew in advance that it was not fit for purpose. Overcharged for the slide and miss represented the people purporting to sell the slide. Well I reckon fraud is likely. my understanding is that the PPE was supplied in accordance to the original specs but the specs were altered after the stuff was supplied and that was the point at which government had an issue, i don't see fraud , just government wanting any excuse to claw back money from someone who played by the very expensive rules at the time because the need for the product no longer existed. Edited July 24 by WTF 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beelzebub3 Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 19 hours ago, Will Halsall said: She may well have a fine pair of icebergs, but if she is found guilty of being a beneficiary of a company that has cost the public £120m for selling defective surgical gowns, she, her husband and any beneficiaries related to that contract should get their comeuppance. She told a porky about having any involvement with Medpro until the evidence was presented, she also has previous with being economical with facts (Labatts job and qualifications, the titillating suggestion that Julia Roberts wore her bras in a film, electronic bugging, false efficacy of slimming pills etc). As I mentioned above, if it was an unattractive scally falsely accused of nicking a doughnut from M&S, everyone would have her hung drawn and quartered, but a pretty celebrity who has made a few quid from covering cans and wearing sexy swimsuits is guaranteed to get most heterosexual men pumping for her! As soon as she opens her mouth my pumping stops, she looks the part although I am not sure if there are quite a few body alterations to enhance her appearance. Give me a good Peel bird anytime🤭 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 1 hour ago, Ringy Rose said: “Under the terms of the contract I agreed to pay you for my shopping but I didn’t supply the cash to you on time and to the standards as agreed under our contract”. It’s really just an unfulfilled contract or an unpaid bill. Contractual dispute. Buying stuff in a shop is a straightforward consumer sale of goods contract. Would imagine that if you want to vary the terms of payment it would have to be agreed with the seller, not as an implied term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 8 minutes ago, Beelzebub3 said: As soon as she opens her mouth my pumping stops, she looks the part although I am not sure if there are quite a few body alterations to enhance her appearance. Give me a good Peel bird anytime🤭 Thanks for sharing. 1 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred the shred Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 All the Peel birds are waiting with bated breath I am sure….. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 a good peel bird ????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Halsall Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 On 7/23/2024 at 10:43 AM, x-in-man said: Most of the cash went out to China and Mafia gangs within hours of the contracts being drawn up. Groups were creating fake webpages just so due diligence web searches could identify them as a 'legitimate' business' That's about as deep as any checking went. The biggest amounts will never be recovered and have probably been spent bombing Ukraine, building Yachts and buying drugs. https://www.independent.co.uk/business/reeves-covid-corruption-commissioner-will-get-back-what-is-owed-to-taxpayers-b2583983.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 6 hours ago, The Phantom said: Yeah but did you sign a contract when you walked into Tesco? Sorry, but that's absurd. 5 hours ago, Gladys said: Buying stuff in a shop is a straightforward consumer sale of goods contract. Would imagine that if you want to vary the terms of payment You agree the contract at the till: you agree that they will give you beans and you will give them money. Exactly the same as if you agree that you will give them PPE of the correct standard and they will give you money. Funny how one is “theft” and one is “a contractual dispute”, isn’t it. 5 hours ago, WTF said: my understanding is that the PPE was supplied in accordance to the original specs but the specs were altered after the stuff was supplied Thanks for dropping by Doug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 15 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said: You agree the contract at the till: you agree that they will give you beans and you will give them money. Exactly the same as if you agree that you will give them PPE of the correct standard and they will give you money. Both seem to have resulted in a big stink this time though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 37 minutes ago, Will Halsall said: https://www.independent.co.uk/business/reeves-covid-corruption-commissioner-will-get-back-what-is-owed-to-taxpayers-b2583983.html That piece makes it clear that the whole exercise is just for propaganda purposes. If Reeves and Labour were really serious about getting the money, the 'commissioner' would have some sort of legal powers to get the money back. And they would have to be part of the legal system rather than reporting back to the Ministers. Even if the role is only investigative, it should be independent if it is to be effective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 17 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said: You agree the contract at the till: you agree that they will give you beans and you will give them money. Exactly the same as if you agree that you will give them PPE of the correct standard and they will give you money. Funny how one is “theft” and one is “a contractual dispute”, isn’t it. You have answered your own question in your first paragraph, if you fail to give the money at the till, or even go to the till, and walk out with the goods,byou haven't completed the contract and it is theft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.