Remove all laws of the land. Replace by rules.

[robinessex]

Breadvan72 said:

So, if this thread really isn't about speeding, what do you propose as a replacement for the offer and acceptance rules in the law of contract? What's your suggested new rule for industrial design rights? Have you a worked out replacement for the law on local Government finance? What's the new system for oil and gas regulation? etc...

Well obviously, with a law degree gained at the bar of the George and Dragon, I am fully qualified to answer that !!!!!!!! Haven't got a clue. However, I did download the idiots guide to contracts off the net a while ago, and maybe BV can comment on this? Despite both parties signing a contract, if any of the terms and conditions turn out to be biased in favour of one of the signatories, the other party can apply to the court to have that particular condition chucked out. e.g. it's not worth the paper it’s written on. Is that an example of ‘wise men’ in action?

[ORD]

robinessex said:

Breadvan72 said:

So, if this thread really isn't about speeding, what do you propose as a replacement for the offer and acceptance rules in the law of contract? What's your suggested new rule for industrial design rights? Have you a worked out replacement for the law on local Government finance? What's the new system for oil and gas regulation? etc...

Well obviously, with a law degree gained at the bar of the George and Dragon, I am fully qualified to answer that !!!!!!!! Haven't got a clue. However, I did download the idiots guide to contracts off the net a while ago, and maybe BV can comment on this? Despite both parties signing a contract, if any of the terms and conditions turn out to be biased in favour of one of the signatories, the other party can apply to the court to have that particular condition chucked out. e.g. it's not worth the paper it’s written on. Is that an example of ‘wise men’ in action?

You might want to go and read your book again and ask whether (a) your summary is miles off and (b) you want consumer protection law. I bet your answers are (a) yes and (b) of course I do.

I cannot think of any decent argument to have total freedom of contract in a society in which the consumer has to contract dozens of times per month on the basis of terms that he cannot reasonably be expected to read.

[anonymous-user]

robinessex said:

...Despite both parties signing a contract, if any of the terms and conditions turn out to be biased in favour of one of the signatories, the other party can apply to the court to have that particular condition chucked out. e.g. it's not worth the paper it’s written on. Is that an example of ‘wise men’ in action?

Sounds like the pub version pf contract law. There is no such general rule, and in most contexts a contract cannot be set aside just because it favours one party more than the anther. Broadly speaking, however, a consumer may not be bound by an unfair term.

[robinessex]

Breadvan72 said:

robinessex said:

...Despite both parties signing a contract, if any of the terms and conditions turn out to be biased in favour of one of the signatories, the other party can apply to the court to have that particular condition chucked out. e.g. it's not worth the paper it’s written on. Is that an example of ‘wise men’ in action?

Sounds like the pub version pf contract law. There is no such general rule, and in most contexts a contract cannot be set aside just because it favours one party more than the anther. Broadly speaking, however, a consumer may not be bound by an unfair term.

That's the bit I'm refering to BV. Unfair term.

[Cooperman]

So a society with no laws, just some general 'rules' which would be open to interpretation by sundry judges, recorders, magistrates, et al.
Sounds like a lawyers' paradise with broadly similar cases being 'tested' in different courts and getting different results, then subsequent interminable appeals with no basis of established case law to fall back on.
That would mean that the 'judges' set the actual laws to suit their views on life and fairness, rather than a solid basis of justice based on hundreds of years of historical judgements with all the checks & balances which have become enshrined in our society.
And all because someone doesn't like being controlled in the way they drive a car.

[anonymous-user]

Control of unfair terms mostly mostly to consumer contracts. There is much more limited scope for challenging terms in commercial contracts.

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 15th September 17:47

[Cooperman]

Breadvan72 said:

Control of unfair terms mostly mostly to consumer contracts. There is much more limited scope for challenging terms in commercial contracts.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Monday 15th September 17:47

My wife had an 'unfair contract term' case which she won after leaving a company which had tried to impose a restrictive covenant for post-employment activities and attempted to prevent her working in the same industry ever again. Unfair. A year or even two might have been appropriate, but a permanent ban was deemed completely unfair and, apparently, under the law it is not possible for a court to change it to a fair(er) term, so the entire term was unlawful. Very interesting case as she won all her costs back as well.

[anonymous-user]

Restrictive covenants are dealt with under common law, rather than under the statutory law as to unfair terms. A covenant that is wider than reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the employer is unenforceable. A permanent restriction would never be upheld (save in respect of trade secrets) and it is surprising that an employer even tried to enforce such a restriction.

[robinessex]

Cooperman said:

So a society with no laws, just some general 'rules' which would be open to interpretation by sundry judges, recorders, magistrates, et al.
Sounds like a lawyers' paradise with broadly similar cases being 'tested' in different courts and getting different results, then subsequent interminable appeals with no basis of established case law to fall back on.
That would mean that the 'judges' set the actual laws to suit their views on life and fairness, rather than a solid basis of justice based on hundreds of years of historical judgements with all the checks & balances which have become enshrined in our society.
And all because someone doesn't like being controlled in the way they drive a car.

The car bit is a red herring. I only used it as an example because this is a car orientated forum.

[mebe]

Tunku said:

I blame all this on Frank Herbert. He is the blue eyed boy in this.

It's all part of the spice of life I guess.

[Toltec]

robinessex said:

The car bit is a red herring. I only used it as an example because this is a car orientated forum.

Another common one discussed on here is is knife law, why is it illegal to carry a knife when you have no intention to use it as a weapon?

How about burglary? Would the new rule make it ok to makebreak in and steal from someone that owes you money?

Will it be fine to damage, remove or sell a vehicle that is parked in an irritating or inconvenient way?

[Devil2575]

robinessex said:

Breadvan72 said:

So, if this thread really isn't about speeding, what do you propose as a replacement for the offer and acceptance rules in the law of contract? What's your suggested new rule for industrial design rights? Have you a worked out replacement for the law on local Government finance? What's the new system for oil and gas regulation? etc...

Well obviously, with a law degree gained at the bar of the George and Dragon, I am fully qualified to answer that !!!!!!!! Haven't got a clue. However, I did download the idiots guide to contracts off the net a while ago, and maybe BV can comment on this? Despite both parties signing a contract, if any of the terms and conditions turn out to be biased in favour of one of the signatories, the other party can apply to the court to have that particular condition chucked out. e.g. it's not worth the paper it’s written on. Is that an example of ‘wise men’ in action?

Do you think it is wrong that unfair terms can be chucked out?

[robinessex]

Devil2575 said:

robinessex said:

Breadvan72 said:

So, if this thread really isn't about speeding, what do you propose as a replacement for the offer and acceptance rules in the law of contract? What's your suggested new rule for industrial design rights? Have you a worked out replacement for the law on local Government finance? What's the new system for oil and gas regulation? etc...

Well obviously, with a law degree gained at the bar of the George and Dragon, I am fully qualified to answer that !!!!!!!! Haven't got a clue. However, I did download the idiots guide to contracts off the net a while ago, and maybe BV can comment on this? Despite both parties signing a contract, if any of the terms and conditions turn out to be biased in favour of one of the signatories, the other party can apply to the court to have that particular condition chucked out. e.g. it's not worth the paper it’s written on. Is that an example of ‘wise men’ in action?

Do you think it is wrong that unfair terms can be chucked out?

Nope.

[Devil2575]

robinessex said:

Devil2575 said:

robinessex said:

Breadvan72 said:

So, if this thread really isn't about speeding, what do you propose as a replacement for the offer and acceptance rules in the law of contract? What's your suggested new rule for industrial design rights? Have you a worked out replacement for the law on local Government finance? What's the new system for oil and gas regulation? etc...

Well obviously, with a law degree gained at the bar of the George and Dragon, I am fully qualified to answer that !!!!!!!! Haven't got a clue. However, I did download the idiots guide to contracts off the net a while ago, and maybe BV can comment on this? Despite both parties signing a contract, if any of the terms and conditions turn out to be biased in favour of one of the signatories, the other party can apply to the court to have that particular condition chucked out. e.g. it's not worth the paper it’s written on. Is that an example of ‘wise men’ in action?

Do you think it is wrong that unfair terms can be chucked out?

Nope.

So what exactly was your point then?

[SK425]

robinessex said:

The car bit is a red herring. I only used it as an example because this is a car orientated forum.

Bit of an odd example. In this new world where the individual circumstances are going to be assessed, speed limits would be redundant anyway.