Advice on dispute with a private school please
Discussion
ORD said:
The points you ran appear to have been bad points. This is not unusual - weak cases often result in good settlements, at least when the amount of money involved is small.
If that is the case and since you suggest this outcome is not abnormal, the advice was wrong pure and simple. The full facts are unlikely to ever be disclosed. BV said that the only option was to pay, his judgement was unqualified and also very wrong. Do you guys argue with your clients like this when you loose a case? "I know the judge said that Mr X, but if he had considered the facts from a different perspective it's fair to say he was technically wrong"
ORD said:
Fair enough. My point is that what seems to have annoyed you is that BV still thinks...
ORD, please take with the respect intended that you have no idea about what annoys me. What annoys me is what I just posted, along with what I posted on the previous page about needless personal attacks. I've lost respect for Breadvan's objectivity in this matter when on the fifth post in this thread Centurion07 came up with the valid and correct point (according to the OFT) about the interest being high and Breadvan pulled "Don't you know who I am.....!" instead of discussing it.
It was my turn next for abuse from him for having the audacity to suggest that I might be able to help the OP and read the contract was necessary.
That, sorrily, set the tone for this rather poisonous thread. IMHO singling people out and belittling or humiliating them for the baying crowd to simply concrete in your own status is the tactics of a playground bully.
If it were not for Jason PMing me and convincing me not to leave the thread and make contact with the OP to help him off the thread - as clearly anyone helping the OP was being belittled on it - the OP would have been £2200 worst off. So credit goes to him.
With regards to your judgement on the amended defence and your idea, a number of parties, including myself, Jason - a lawyer, no doubt two staff at the school and two solicitors for the school have had access to all of the paperwork. I'm not sure what the benefit of another is. Please also remember that the paperwork belongs to the OP, and it was Jason's work as well. I have no right to post that up on a public forum, or the contract.
On that matter, I think it's worth pausing for a second to consider that after announcing the outcome the OP only came back once, simply to defend himself, and since then the OP and Jason want no further part in this thread. It's worth considering why that might be. As I said, Jason had the foresight I didn't, and maybe I had more (misplaced) faith in the forum.
As the OP said, I am afraid that on this is a result 10% because of this forum, and sadly 90% in spite of it.
Take from that what you will, but I'm taking the OP's and Jason's lead from now.
Edited by JustinP1 on Friday 16th October 10:43
I have no idea what you are so upset about. I say that genuinely and with kindness. I am sorry that you have taken the criticism of your arguments personally.
A great result for the OP, and that is the only thing that matters much. The rest is largely academic.
(As for whether or not lawyers ever blame the judge, of course they do. And sometimes they are right - this is why we have appeals.)
A great result for the OP, and that is the only thing that matters much. The rest is largely academic.
(As for whether or not lawyers ever blame the judge, of course they do. And sometimes they are right - this is why we have appeals.)
ORD said:
I have no idea what you are so upset about. I say that genuinely and with kindness. I am sorry that you have taken the criticism of your arguments personally.
A great result for the OP, and that is the only thing that matters much. The rest is largely academic.
(As for whether or not lawyers ever blame the judge, of course they do. And sometimes they are right - this is why we have appeals.)
Maybe you don't, but it's pretty obvious to me. And 'upset' isn't a very good word, pissed off and annoyed, maybe, and some exasperation too.A great result for the OP, and that is the only thing that matters much. The rest is largely academic.
(As for whether or not lawyers ever blame the judge, of course they do. And sometimes they are right - this is why we have appeals.)
This thread becomes increasingly hilarious, but it is very, very PH, and therefore a good thing. There is a certain type of internet forum poster who feels the need to post tribally, and so he or she will always disagree with certain other posters, regardless of the subject. For example, singlecoil and RobinOakapple, as far as I can tell from other threads, disagree with everything that I say on every single subject imaginable, legal or otherwise, so they are duty bound to opine that Justin was right. If I were to say (which of course I would not) that today (ie Friday 16 October 2015) is Friday 16 October 2015, I would probably be picked up on some point about that by various regular sparring partners. I think that it is more fun to debate much as you play the excellent board game "Diplomacy" - allying with and opposing others according to circumstance*, but not all agree with this. Winstonwolf and I, for example, cordially disagree on a great many things, but make common cause about others, and neither of us takes any of this stuff seriously. Note the latter point - it can save much grumpage.
Here's an attempt at a big huggy compromise. Everyone was right! There was, strictly speaking, no defence to the claim on the facts or the law (I really have looked hard for a decent point amidst Justin's mish mash of irrelevant blah, but neither I nor any other lawyer here can spot one); but , and this is the important bit, Justin and JanJ were able to help the OP pay less than the full whack. [WARNING: Latin language alert, non grammar school kids look away now!] Pacta non sunt servanda, and all are happy. This not being a grammar school, or even an "annexe" to one (annexe, yeah right!), all have done well, and all shall have prizes. Except, I don't want one, so, as there is a spare one going, Justin can have two. Does that seem fair?
* Was it Palmerston who said something like "Her Majesty's Government has no permanent enemies, and no permanent friends, only permanent interests"? Him, or some other bloke.
Here's an attempt at a big huggy compromise. Everyone was right! There was, strictly speaking, no defence to the claim on the facts or the law (I really have looked hard for a decent point amidst Justin's mish mash of irrelevant blah, but neither I nor any other lawyer here can spot one); but , and this is the important bit, Justin and JanJ were able to help the OP pay less than the full whack. [WARNING: Latin language alert, non grammar school kids look away now!] Pacta non sunt servanda, and all are happy. This not being a grammar school, or even an "annexe" to one (annexe, yeah right!), all have done well, and all shall have prizes. Except, I don't want one, so, as there is a spare one going, Justin can have two. Does that seem fair?
* Was it Palmerston who said something like "Her Majesty's Government has no permanent enemies, and no permanent friends, only permanent interests"? Him, or some other bloke.
Breadvan72 said:
For example, singlecoil and RobinOakapple, as far as I can tell from other threads, disagree with everything that I say on every single subject imaginable, legal or otherwise,
You have finally managed to impress me. That's quite a clever thing to say, because if I disagree with it I prove you right
I don't recall having come across you on anything other than SP&L, and the McCann thread, so don't know whether I would agree with you on any other subject.
How do you feel about music? Any particular favourites? I might well like them too.
... is the right answer!
He s
tteth you not, dear Readers. This morning I got up at 4, had to jump start my shagged out XJS in the dark (weird battery drain), and drove it clonking and bonking (busted spring) from South Oxon into London, to the garage that is going to fix the above snageroos. I collected the shonky Lotus from the same garage, where it had been getting some bits fixed. All previous faults fixed, but it seems to have developed a new one (classic garageitis), and appeared to want to explode a bit while driving in heavy traffic into work. Sheesh, I have to drive the heap from London to Cambridge tomorrow, but tonight I shall be mostly drunk, so that's OK. My mood will not improve if I go ahead and buy the 1990 Disco V8 that I have been toying with on the eBay this last day or so. Anyone want to buy a tatty but reliable (really!) 1976 SWB Landy?
He s
tteth you not, dear Readers. This morning I got up at 4, had to jump start my shagged out XJS in the dark (weird battery drain), and drove it clonking and bonking (busted spring) from South Oxon into London, to the garage that is going to fix the above snageroos. I collected the shonky Lotus from the same garage, where it had been getting some bits fixed. All previous faults fixed, but it seems to have developed a new one (classic garageitis), and appeared to want to explode a bit while driving in heavy traffic into work. Sheesh, I have to drive the heap from London to Cambridge tomorrow, but tonight I shall be mostly drunk, so that's OK. My mood will not improve if I go ahead and buy the 1990 Disco V8 that I have been toying with on the eBay this last day or so. Anyone want to buy a tatty but reliable (really!) 1976 SWB Landy? Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 16th October 11:52
JustinP1 said:
...
With regards to your judgement on the amended defence and your idea, a number of parties, including myself, Jason - a lawyer, no doubt two staff at the school and two solicitors for the school have had access to all of the paperwork. I'm not sure what the benefit of another is. Please also remember that the paperwork belongs to the OP, and it was Jason's work as well. I have no right to post that up on a public forum, or the contract.
...
Pleadings are public domain documents, Justin. Surely as a keen litigant you knew that? Or maybe you didn't. With regards to your judgement on the amended defence and your idea, a number of parties, including myself, Jason - a lawyer, no doubt two staff at the school and two solicitors for the school have had access to all of the paperwork. I'm not sure what the benefit of another is. Please also remember that the paperwork belongs to the OP, and it was Jason's work as well. I have no right to post that up on a public forum, or the contract.
...
Law schools are a bit rubbish, in many ways, but they do have their uses.
Breadvan72 said:
... is the right answer!
He stteth you not, dear Readers. This morning I got up at 4, had to jump start my shagged out XJS in the dark (weird battery drain), and drove it clonking and bonking (busted spring) from South Oxon into London, to the garage that is going to fix the above snageroos. I collected the shonky Lotus from the same garage, where it had been getting some bits fixed. All previous faults fixed, but it seems to have developed a new one (classic garageitis), and appeared to want to explode a bit while driving in heavy traffic into work. Sheesh, I have to drive the heap from London to Cambridge tomorrow, but tonight I shall be mostly drunk, so that's OK. My mood will not improve if I go ahead and buy the 1990 Disco V8 that I have been toying with on the eBay this last day or so. Anyone want to buy a tatty but reliable (really!) 1976 SWB Landy?
This is however an important part of the plan to ameliorate the storage challenge of where to keep one's schlonky old cars; between the Gamma, the mini classic and the Rangie, one of them is always at Paul-the-Schlonker-wizard in StockwellHe s
tteth you not, dear Readers. This morning I got up at 4, had to jump start my shagged out XJS in the dark (weird battery drain), and drove it clonking and bonking (busted spring) from South Oxon into London, to the garage that is going to fix the above snageroos. I collected the shonky Lotus from the same garage, where it had been getting some bits fixed. All previous faults fixed, but it seems to have developed a new one (classic garageitis), and appeared to want to explode a bit while driving in heavy traffic into work. Sheesh, I have to drive the heap from London to Cambridge tomorrow, but tonight I shall be mostly drunk, so that's OK. My mood will not improve if I go ahead and buy the 1990 Disco V8 that I have been toying with on the eBay this last day or so. Anyone want to buy a tatty but reliable (really!) 1976 SWB Landy? Edited by Breadvan72 on Friday 16th October 11:52
Breadvan72 said:
Pleadings are public domain documents, Justin. Surely as a keen litigant you knew that? Or maybe you didn't.
Law schools are a bit rubbish, in many ways, but they do have their uses.
Even after I've told you that someone has asked if I've complained to PH about it, and even after I've pointed it out so graphically, you really cannot stop yourself taking every opportunity to stereotype and belittle people can you?Law schools are a bit rubbish, in many ways, but they do have their uses.
It is really beyond a joke. Is it not a hint when even people who support you have to point this out? Honestly, why do you do it?
But again, in your effort to twist the situation to humiliate you've blinded yourself to the point:
These are the OP's private dealings, I am not going to over-rule his wishes and post up everything he's sent me in confidence to a public forum. If he wants another opinion the OP can post whatever he wants.
My guess is though that he won't alter his decision, and certainly not for you because as he stated, he has gained a pretty poor opinion of you through this thread.
I genuinely don't care what your smarmy come-back to this will be, and you can continue to administrate "Speed, Plod and Breadvan is the Law" with your own brand of humiliation and aggravation unfettered as I think it is toxic and want no further part of it.
Edited by JustinP1 on Friday 16th October 13:05
ORD said:
How pathetic that PH now closes threads if people have a little moan at each other! We are grown ups. I am sure everyone will be just fine.
I don't think it's being closed because of moaning, more because the argument has become circular. JP/J&J appear to have achieved an outcome which BV72 is saying is "wrong" [I think - apologies if I've lost the thread somewhere...)I'm not sure what would be achieved by continuing...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff