|
On
the parlous state of reasoning and judgment to be found in state
managed organs for complaints and the British Courts of Justice
Winter
V Amtrak
Express Parcels Ltd (Amtrak lost £1200 to defend £8)
No doubt due to floodgate potential. They
average about 5% failure rate on figures gained by this
claimant. A considerable sum of money gained illegally in breach
of their contract.
In
2005, I was the claimant in a case against Amtrak Express Parcel
Services Ltd.
How
the privity rule was used, (by simple obversion) when the
defendant said I could not claim under it.
THE
PRIVITY RULE.
The
short synopsis is detailed in the index below.
FOR
THE CASE IN DETAIL CLICK HERE.
This page Amtrak
|
Click
link below for Wedgwood/UPS.
New
and coming, HERE... dispute with Wedgwood
& UPS (their Couriers U.P.S.) in
semantic
spin gibberish where
'parcels experience exceptions,' (yes parcels now have
senses!) and Royal mail, saying 'sorry you were out,' while
virtually handing you the card that says so. Amusing
stupidity from templates and rebuttable presumptions that
are utterly
ridiculous
in their utterances.
|
Amtrak
Express Parcels Ltd case below
I
purchased computer goods from Micro-Direct, ordering them on a
Thursday to be delivered overnight by Friday 12 AM.
This
was a contract initially under the sale of goods act 1979, and
as amended.
There
was a written contract between the carriers Amtrak, and
Micro-Direct, which stated that if the goods were not
delivered on time, or within a reasonable boundary of an
excess period, like the next timed delivery that day, then a
MONEY BACK GUARANTEE was in place to remedy the breach.
Next
day at about 9 am, Amtrak came to the front entrance of the
block of flats, and left a card loosely placed between the
glass of the door and its surround, saying they had visited,
and on receiving the card, the recipient should call.
This
was the second occurrence of such a delivery, where a card
was left, no doorbell was rung, I was at home, being
disabled, (getting out very rarely in the week).
The
disappointment was serious as I had been looking out for the
driver from 8.30 that morning, and had missed him. My
telephone number was on the goods, with instructions that any
problems on delivery, the driver should call, and he would
find me in residence. This was not followed, their telephone
records may be relied on to show truth.
I
called the depot, within 20 minutes of seeing the card, asked
if they would see if the driver was still in the vicinity, and
they then a undertook to re-deliver that afternoon, before 4pm.
I was sceptical.
Several
phone calls, faxes and emails saw the end of day without the
goods, the next time window had been breached, I was entitled
to a full or partial refund, plain and simple.
Saturday
came and went, Sunday I emailed both supplier and carrier,
saying if the goods were not delivered by midnight Monday they
would be cancelled. Monday came and went, I cancelled the goods
overnight, and notified both parties.
On
Tuesday I booked appointments to inspect and collect the goods
locally, on Wednesday afternoon. On Wednesday morning about
12am, the original cancelled goods arrived, taken in by my
wife. I notified the seller, I was holding the goods, unopened
until we had sorted out not merely the refund, but some
compensation for avoidable time and trouble plus the extreme
vexation and detriment I had received. After a while the seller
agreed to compensate me, they refunded the £15, and
compensated mean additional sum of about £70 to retain
the goods. This left a shortfall of £30 in Court costs,
for the issue of the claim, that I stated I would seek from
Amtrak.
One
would think that was all sorted out, and why on earth should I
not be contented. Being disabled I was exempted from court
costs, the taxpayer had paid that for me, and the seller the
remainder. I wanted Justice for the seller and the tax payer. A
foolish focus, to make the culprit accountable, and seek a
remedy that did not mean others bailing me out.
I
was NOT happy at all, on grounds that I was informed the
seller had as a matter of goodwill, compensated me, and when
they approached the carriers who had behaved not with mere
simple negligence, but wilful negligence, and remarkable
prejudice ignoring a series of representations, the carrier's
were adamant in refusal to compensate the seller under their
own contract.
There
was an inherent injustice, want of equity, unfairness, and
abrogation of all liability under a contract by a villainous
company bent on defending their £15 to the limit.
I
spoke to Amtrak's company secretary and solicitor (same person)
who confirmed they had not met the seller on any part of the
their loss, and told me that I could not claim from them under
the 'privity
rule'.
I
asked them to settle part or all of the £15 with their
customer, the seller, they refused, and I said I would proceed
to collect the £30 court costs, as if I had paid them,
and give them back to the taxpayer though the courts.
What
vexed me was the total arrogance and stubbornness of the
culprit , and their failure to hold themselves accountable
under their own contract. The argument under th privity rule
was unknown to me at that time, but instinctively I felt the
law should see the injustice that was clear to all others
except the carrier.. Their own contract under the law had been
breached, they disowned all responsibility despite being
unquestionably culpable in a next day delivery being 6 days
late. I took the view the privity rule was a mere impediment, a
just and fair settlement had to be sought, at any cost, as a
matter of principle. The asymmetry of information being their
solicitor knowing more about the privity rule than myself at
that moment was something I would rectify if the claim went
forward, on mere research into the origins and basis of their
argument.
I
proceeded to seek a remedy of the principle of total
unequivocal injustice. The defendant (carriers) deposed a
defence, that was immediately fallacious.
Indeed ts construction was not
that the fallacy was a simple error of
reasoning, but a syllogistic
construction with an inherent non-sequitur. It laid out
the breach as if they had actually
delivered the very next day. This was sworn for truth, and the
first perjurous statement of several in writing, over the year
long exchange.
Apologetically,
I was not prepared to tolerate this, and resolved to pursue the
remedy to the limit. My thoroughness over that year built some
500 pages of exchanges, emails, critiques of a number of
additional perjuries, and wilful breaches of undertakings with
the court itself, in the thwarting of civil procedure rules, to
extend the time, and attempt to throw me off.
The
first hearing, (undefended) was exemplary, professional and
reasonable. Her Honour the judge advised the defendant had a
strong argument under th privity rule, and the contract itself
was going to be a serious hurdle. I thought about it for 24
hours, and advised the court I wished to press on for a second
hearing. I set about clarifying the privity rule, verified they
had still not settled the breach towards the seller, and
remained adamantine.
I
simply looked up the privity rule, discovered it had arisen in
1861, and that reforms under the Contracts of third parties act
1999, gave several approaches to a remedy, providing exceptions
for the privity rule, where the third party could be held
responsible if the argument was sustained that the relationship
was either one of Agency or the
contract was Collateral in nature.
Both looked promising and I prepared argument covering them.
Next I went on to examine, with greater purpose the privity
rule itself, to discover that this rule, that had govern
lawyers problems for over one hundred years had the simplest
method of avoidance based on the doctrine of consideration. You
will need to look a the rule, its first main case, and apply
simple logic to the converse of the case, and the defence by
the defendant was eliminated in one stroke. At the second
hearing, after seeing the defendant and Judge were both of like
minds, and that I was pressing on for an expensive case that
should be dismissed, the Judge listened
to my argument. It took about three minutes, and I concluded it
made the claim enforceable. He was uncertain, asked us
to leave the court and seek a settlement during a period of ten
minutes. There was little chance of this, the defendant was
still not prepared to give ground, or even talk with me.
On
re-entering the court, the Judge stated that my argument was
correct, and the claim was enforcible, we were given a future
hearing of two and half hours. This was more than satisfactory
but perceptibly precarious, yet perfectly correct, despite an
initial, but easily remedied attitude concerning the principle
at cause.
I
had considered the defendant would possibly take a commercial
decision to settle, but not guessed their reasons for being so
adamant in denial, until I considered the notion that if they
conceded to me, (having told me they had never settled such
claims themselves) they would open themselves to a class action
from similar claimants running to several hundred claims a
month.
The
third hearing was satisfactory in part, in returning a
detriment where I has been served with one, and hearing the
Judge concluded with high praise for my own delivery and
deplorable opportunism from the defendant, and her barrister.
the grave disappointment flowed several weeks later, after a
few exchanges with the court, in the judges written order that
stood so far in contradistinction with the terms of the
hearing, that I was compelled to analyse and consequently
criticise the final order as being fallacious in several of its
methodologies, and show clearly that my contrary judgment , was
cogently true. The fallacies were
This
critique was sent to the Judges clerk for filing along with the
tapes, and other post hearing exchanges.
Click
HERE
to
go to the many exhibits and documents, and peruse a little
further for the overturning of the privity rule.
THE
PRIVITY RULE.
To
be continued just a few paragraphs.
The case was
passed to the Trading Standards OFFICE in Camden in Autumn 2005,
and they passed it to the Unfair Co tract Terms section of the
Office of fair Trading. The case is still with the OFT. Amtrak
Have a report with the OFT, and the report is available for
download here.
http://www.oft.gov.uk/Search+Results
Forget
the one above now
it has moved
here....
http://www.oft.gov.uk/search;jsessionid=D0FBF73CD5FEFC391BD21F63EA311C1F?pg=1
The
case was still with the OFT until 2007....... FAIR trade or Fare
trade?
Two years, now just look at their replies....A
hopeless organization, just like the LGO, PSO, (public Sector
Ombudsman), the Audit commission, Adjudicators and the judicial
system in general where power changes purpose and they are more
deemers and seemers, than normal.. A sickening
cancerous system of 'circumlocution' centres to palliate
maladministration, put every thing into thought form subjunctive
arguments, and DO NOTHING about a complaint. Their exposure is
coming here......http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/exposures.html
Enter
the keyword search AMTRAK and you will find the report on page
10 of that word document.
The
specific page is here
below, and
the report may also be examined from here...........
You
can see the item MONEY
BACK GUARANTEE was
given more prominence, but in the claimant's case it
made no difference whatsoever
to
their policy. To this day, we are still waiting for the £15
back. Clearly they prefer the adverse publicity, to the refund.
|