United Kingdom

820 posts / 0 new
Last post
voice of the damned

josh wrote:

if I were to simply promise that when your kids turn 18 I'll pay their tuition for four years at the university of their choice, and then I totally renege on that promise, there's nothing in law that can enforce it.

Not necessarily true.  If you were to rely on the promise by, say, not putting away money for college, you can argue detrimental reliance under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. 

Just to clarify, in this jointly crafted scenario, one person makes the promise, and the other person decides not to put money away for his kids' college fund, right? The pronoun usage(Magoo saying "I" and Josh saying "you") made it a little confusing.

josh

Yes.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

josh wrote:

if I were to simply promise that when your kids turn 18 I'll pay their tuition for four years at the university of their choice, and then I totally renege on that promise, there's nothing in law that can enforce it.

Not necessarily true.  If you were to rely on the promise by, say, not putting away money for college, you can argue detrimental reliance under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. 

Wow, the last time I read the phrase "promissory estoppel" was in contract law class nearly 50 years ago. It brings back memories.

voice of the damned

Michael Moriarity wrote:

josh wrote:

if I were to simply promise that when your kids turn 18 I'll pay their tuition for four years at the university of their choice, and then I totally renege on that promise, there's nothing in law that can enforce it.

Not necessarily true.  If you were to rely on the promise by, say, not putting away money for college, you can argue detrimental reliance under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. 

Wow, the last time I read the phrase "promissory estoppel" was in contract law class nearly 50 years ago. It brings back memories.

I think my knowledge of contract law is limited to the US "medicine ball" case, invalidating contracts with the general public. You can guess where I got that from.

Rev Pesky

Voice of the damned, please tell me more about the 'medicine ball' case. It sounds very interesting.

As to 'promissory estoppel' according to one source:

An additional requirement is that the person making the claim, the promisee, must have reasonably relied on the promise — in other words, that the promise was one that a reasonable person would ordinarily rely on.

Pardon me for saying, but given the example we are dealing with, relying on a politician's promise would hardly qualify. In fact it was express that the referendum was non-binding.

josh

Promissory estoppel was raised only as related to Magoo's example.  Applies to contracts, not to political promises.

voice of the damned

Rev Pesky wrote:

Voice of the damned, please tell me more about the 'medicine ball' case. It sounds very interesting.

 

Sorry, I got a few things wrong. It was "carbolic smoke balls", not medicine balls, and it was an English, not an American, case. And the company won, not lost, as I had previously thought.

The basic facts are a woman named Carlill saw an ad from a drug company promising that, if anyone took their medicinal smoke-balls for a certain period of time, and still got sick, the company would pay them a large sum of money. Mrs. Carlill took the pills, got sick, and tried to collect the reward. The company argued in court that their ad didn't constitute a contract, because it was aimed not at one person but at the whole world. Due to the specifics of the case, the company lost. I think that pricinple was still upheld by the court, just that it didn't apply to Calill's situation.

I only really know this from the movie The Paper Chase, where Kingsfield emphasizes the "no contracts with the public" aspect, which is why I thought the company had won. 

https://tinyurl.com/y87964ve

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The basic facts are a woman named Carlill saw an ad from a drug company promising that, if anyone took their medicinal smoke-balls for a certain period of time, and still got sick, the company would pay them a large sum of money.

Interesting that the company could win, because that sounds exactly like a warranty.

"If our vacuum cleaner ever tears up your carpet, we'll replace it with a Persian rug!"

progressive17 progressive17's picture

"If you are not 1000% satisfied, God give you the serenity to accept the things you cannot change".

Rev Pesky

"Our world famous guarantee!! Once we have your money...."

Rev Pesky

A very interesting case (courtesy Wikipedia):

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892]  is an English contract law decision by the Court of Appeal, which held an advertisement containing certain terms to get a reward constituted a binding unilateral offer that could be accepted by anyone who performed its terms. It is notable for its curious subject matter and how the influential judges (particularly Lindley LJ and Bowen LJ) developed the law in inventive ways. Carlill is frequently discussed as an introductory contract case, and may often be the first legal case a law student studies in the law of contract.

 

 

Pogo Pogo's picture

Cowichan Waste Disposal has a slogan.  "Satisfaction guaranteed or double your garbage back."

voice of the damned

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
The basic facts are a woman named Carlill saw an ad from a drug company promising that, if anyone took their medicinal smoke-balls for a certain period of time, and still got sick, the company would pay them a large sum of money.

Interesting that the company could win, because that sounds exactly like a warranty.

"If our vacuum cleaner ever tears up your carpet, we'll replace it with a Persian rug!"

Actually, the company lost, because the court ruled that certain factors(eg. the offer was restricted to people who followed the terms of the ad, the company claimed to have set aside money for the prize etc) made it into a genuine contract.

Under less specified circumstances, I would GUESS that one legal difference between a warranty and a promise in a newspaper is that the warranty is given to each customer individually upon purchase of the product, whereas an ad in the newspaper is just read by the general public.

https://tinyurl.com/y8orttuk

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Actually, the company lost, because the court ruled that certain factors

Fair enough.  I was just going by this:

Quote:
And the company won, not lost, as I had previously thought.

Always trust your first instinct.  ;)

NDPP

Britain's Top Army General Begs For More Cash So He Can Fight...Guess Who? (and vid)

https://on.rt.com/8xh9

"British militarists on the Right are really now upping their Cold War rhetoric and fear-mongering for more military spending. Again, no matter your views of Russia and 2016, this is the obvious, inevitable, intended outcome across the West of the belligerent discourse on Russia."

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/957227309815205888

NDPP

George Galloway: The Mother Of All Talk Shows (TMOATS, podcast)

https://youtu.be/xOzpjyypmTA

"Well it's been a good week for Donald Trump...It's the memo that everyone is talking about...We're talking about 'Crooked Hillary' who's now been caught by the release of 'The Memo', as the person who paid for the Christopher Steele memo and all its golden showers, a fact that was not divulged to the judge when he gave the initial wiretap permissions for Donald Trump's key aides and which may mean the end - THE END - of the Russiagate saga..."

 

Pogo Pogo's picture

NDPP wrote:
Britain's Top Army General Begs For More Cash So He Can Fight...Guess Who? (and vid)

Well obviously the general haven't seen the Mouse that Roared, then they would be targeting the true enemy! Of course Russian Generals never ask for money.

bekayne

NDPP wrote:

George Galloway: The Mother Of All Talk Shows (TMOATS, podcast)

https://youtu.be/xOzpjyypmTA

"Well it's been a good week for Donald Trump...It's the memo that everyone is talking about...We're talking about 'Crooked Hillary' who's now been caught by the release of 'The Memo', as the person who paid for the Christopher Steele memo and all its golden showers, a fact that was not divulged to the judge when he gave the initial wiretap permissions for Donald Trump's key aides and which may mean the end - THE END - of the Russiagate saga..."

 

Does George want a gig on Fox News?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

The British high court has now recognized that the prison sytem in the U.S. is so savage that it would be illegal to send a British hacker for trial there, rather that trying him in the U.K.

Owen Bowcott wrote:

A high court ruling blocking extradition to the US of Lauri Love, a student accused of breaking into US government websites, has been welcomed by lawyers and human rights groups as a precedent for trying hacking suspects in the UK in future.

The decision delivered by the lord chief justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon, is highly critical of the conditions Love would have endured in US jails, warning of the risk of suicide.

Edited to add this link to the story.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The British high court has now recognized that the prison sytem in the U.S. is so savage that it would be illegal to send a British hacker for trial there

Is that all they said?  Because I kind of got from it that this particular person was fragile, not that the system was especially savage.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
The British high court has now recognized that the prison sytem in the U.S. is so savage that it would be illegal to send a British hacker for trial there

Is that all they said?  Because I kind of got from it that this particular person was fragile, not that the system was especially savage.

Is this really your idea of logic? If it were only that the particular accused person was fragile, but the treatment received in U.S. prisons would be no worse than that received in U.K. prisons, then why would there be any valid objection to extradition? If treatment in the U.S. system were not significantly worse, then surely the lord chief justice would have dismissed the motion.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Is this really your idea of logic? If it were only that the particular accused person was fragile, but the treatment received in U.S. prisons would be no worse than that received in U.K. prisons, then why would there be any valid objection to extradition?

Has the UK ever extradited anyone else, then?  If this is all about the US system then the answer should be "no"... yes?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Is this really your idea of logic? If it were only that the particular accused person was fragile, but the treatment received in U.S. prisons would be no worse than that received in U.K. prisons, then why would there be any valid objection to extradition?

Has the UK ever extradited anyone else, then?  If this is all about the US system then the answer should be "no"... yes?

Sure, they've extradited plenty, but this is what they call in the law business a "precedent". They occasionally come along, and change the way things are done, based on changes in the world.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Was there anything special about this one?  Or did they just get "woke"?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Was there anything special about this one?  Or did they just get "woke"?

Instead of continuing with the tedious faux hipness, why not address my substantive point. If it were only that the particular accused person was fragile, but the treatment received in U.S. prisons would be no worse than that received in U.K. prisons, then why would there be any valid objection to extradition?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
but the treatment received in U.S. prisons would be no worse than that received in U.K. prisons, then why would there be any valid objection to extradition?

That's a bit of a circular argument, in that the validity of the objection assumes that UK prisons are safe and fair places, and US prisons are not.  And maybe they aren't, but this ruling isn't why we should believe that.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
but the treatment received in U.S. prisons would be no worse than that received in U.K. prisons, then why would there be any valid objection to extradition?

That's a bit of a circular argument, in that the validity of the objection assumes that UK prisons are safe and fair places, and US prisons are not.  And maybe they aren't, but this ruling isn't why we should believe that.

Others will have to judge who is making a circular, or otherwise false, argument, because I've had enough of it for now, thanks.

Cody87

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Was there anything special about this one?  Or did they just get "woke"?

Instead of continuing with the tedious faux hipness, why not address my substantive point. If it were only that the particular accused person was fragile, but the treatment received in U.S. prisons would be no worse than that received in U.K. prisons, then why would there be any valid objection to extradition?

Here's a question...do you think the U.K. court that made this ruling would have ruled the same way if Obama or Clinton was president?

Because it seems to me that Magoo raises a valid point. It was never an issue before (my added point being: when there was a more friendly administration in office). It seems quite plausible to me that this particular prisoner is just a pawn in a political game to embarass the U.S. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

voice of the damned

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Was there anything special about this one?  Or did they just get "woke"?

Instead of continuing with the tedious faux hipness, why not address my substantive point. If it were only that the particular accused person was fragile, but the treatment received in U.S. prisons would be no worse than that received in U.K. prisons, then why would there be any valid objection to extradition?

It could be a combination of his fragility AND the rough nature of the US prison system, ie. her physical or mental constitution makes him unlikely to endure the traumas he will encounter.

Because apart from that, I don't see how this wouldn't lead to ANYONE in the UK, up to and including accused rapists and murderers, being able to claim protection from extradition to the US on the grounds that the prison system would be intolerable.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Cody87 wrote:

Here's a question...do you think the U.K. court that made this ruling would have ruled the same way if Obama or Clinton was president?

Because it seems to me that Magoo raises a valid point. It was never an issue before (my added point being: when there was a more friendly administration in office). It seems quite plausible to me that this particular prisoner is just a pawn in a political game to embarass the U.S. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Well, it's been nearly 40 years since I left my law practice to write software, so my knowledge is really out of date. But back when I was a lawyer, the British judiciary was pretty non-political, in the sense that they accepted the historical power structure, but mostly tried to interpret the law impartially, given their own class prejudices. I would have been shocked if a British judge made a decsion based on who was the president of the U.S., or who was the PM. They would decide based on the principles of law in which they believed, rightly or wrongly, not on the political impact of a particular case.

In this case it seems that the applicant's counsel presented a lot of evidence about the barbaric practices in U.S. prisons, and that is largely the reason for the decision. The judge thought that the conditions the applicant would face in the U.S. prison system would be contrary to what used to be called fundamental justice, or equity. The fact that the same case hadn't arisen before is mostly a result of how quickly the U.S. prisons have become barbaric torture chambers. I feel quite confident that this same judge, with the same evidence before him, would have decided the case the same way 2 years ago while Obama was president.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

It could be a combination of his fragility AND the rough nature of the US prison system, ie. her physical or mental constitution makes him unlikely to endure the traumas he will encounter.

Because apart from that, I don't see how this wouldn't lead to ANYONE in the UK, up to and including accused rapists and murderers, being able to claim protection from extradition to the US on the grounds that the prison system would be intolerable.

Good points. I think one really important factor is that sentences for hacking offenses in the U.S. tend to be an order of magnitude longer (30 years vs. 3 years) compared to europe and the U.K. Similar to drug laws, the U.S. penalties for unauthorized access to computers are quite draconian, compared to most western countries. The same is not the case for rape or murder. These are considered extremely serious crimes by just about all countries. Only the U.S. is this harsh with non-violent offenders.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Jail is cruel and unusual punishment, in Britain, the United States, or Canada.

NDPP

Modern Imperialism Goes On Trial and is Found Guilty  (and vid)   -   by Neil Clark

https://on.rt.com/8ycw

"Imperialism - which today is usually referred to by the euphemism 'liberal interventionism' - went on trial at the Waterside Theatre, in Derry, Northern Ireland this week. Five passionate and well-informed speakers, who included the former British Ambassador to Syria Peter Ford detailed the carnage and chaos that has been unleashed across the globe by the aggressive, warmongering policies of the US and its closest allies..."

NDPP

Labour Expels Jewish Anti-Zionist Tony Greenstein

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/labour-expels-jewish...

"Although the disciplinary panel that expelled Greenstein claims it was not because of his views, a Labour Party document seen by EI suggests otherwise..."

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

How is it that Labour's disciplinary committee is STILL controlled by the anti-Corbyn wing of the party?

Doug Woodard

Cancel Brexit, reform the EU:

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/britain-hold-answer-europe-woe...

I haven't seen this explicitly stated for a long time.

NDPP

Theresa May's '45 Minutes' Claim

https://t.co/zOpJMZg7KV

"Today the British government made some dubious assertions about the poisoning of its double agent Sergey Skripal."

UK Gives Moscow 2 Days To Explain Alleged Use of a Nerve Agent From Russia

https://youtu.be/BSt7PlzLahc

"Britain has given Moscow 2 days to explain the alleged use of a military grade nerve agent from Russia to poison former double agent Sergei Skripal."

The Skripal Case: An Open Thread

https://off-guardian.org/2018/03/11/the-skripal-case-an-open-thread/

NDPP

Labour MP Chris Bryant Calls For RT-UK To Be Shut Down...

https://www.rt.com/uk/421111-propaganda-ofcom-chris-bryant/

"Speaking in the Commons on Monday, after PM Theresa May was updating MPs on the poisoning of ex-double-agent Sergei Skripal, Bryant, the MP for Rhondda, asked, 'Can we just stop Russia Today (RT) broadcasting its propaganda in this country?"

NDPP

Russia Defies UK Ultimatum For Ex-Spy Poisoning Explanation as Deadline Runs Out

https://on.rt.com/910f

"The Russian embassy in the UK backed Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's earlier statement that Moscow would not respond to London's ultimatum unless the internationally-accepted procedure is followed in the investigation. The case must go through the proper channels of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), of which both Russia and the UK are members, Lavrov said on Tuesday. The OPCW rules allow London to send a formal inquiry to Moscow, with a 10-day window for a reply..."

NDPP

Expel Russian Diplomats, Ask for More Powers - May's Plan Over Skripal Case

https://on.rt.com/9123

Novichok - Toxic Questions About Chemical at Center of Skripal Saga

https://on.rt.com/9100

CrossTalk on Sergei Skripal 'Publicity Murder'

https://youtu.be/LF3Fue4UViM

'It appears' and 'highly likely' are the words used by UK PM Theresa May pinning blame on Russia for the poison attack on a former Russian intelligence officer turned British spy. Claims are made and threats flaunted. Of course all without evidence."

NDPP

Jeremy Corbyn Under Fire Over Response to PM's Russia Statement

https://t.co/LP6bM3ccYe

"A string of Labour MPs in the House of Commons stood up to offer their unequivocal backing to the prime minister - and by implication criticize what they regarded as Corbyn's limp response..."

"Yesterday I watched a 'Labour' MP, bloated as Beelzebub, almost literally foaming with hatred of Russia, of Corbyn of anything remotely challenging of power. I saw in his ugliness the sheer scale of  Corbyn's problem. He sits atop a parliamentary pile of steaming shit."

https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/973702058426683395

 

NDPP

Cui Bono? Russian Envoy To UN Asks About Salisbury Case, Says Moscow Ready For Open Probe

https://on.rt.com/913e

"Establishing truth in the case of the poisoning of former double agent Sergei Skripal is actually 'the last thing' that the British government is interested in, Nebenzya said during a UN Security Council meeting called on the initiative of the UK. He went on to say that the UK is, in fact, waging a 'propagandist war' against Russia by throwing 'baseless accusations' at Moscow. 'We were given 24 hours to confess to a crime,' the Russian envoy to the UN said. 'We do not speak the language of ultimatums..."

NDPP

'Absurd' that Russia Would Have Its 'Signature' on Skripal Crime - George Galloway

https://on.rt.com/915i

"Here is the killer question that was not asked in Parliament on Monday or Wednesday,' Galloway said. 'If Novichok is exclusively Russian, why would Russia choose that weapon to mount a terrorist attack on the streets of Salisbury? They may as well be leaving a pair of boots covered with snow and painting 'Vladimir Putin woz here' on the nearest wall. It's absolutely absurd that Russia would actually put its signature on a crime like this if it had really carried it out,..."

"Remarkable correlation between Labour MPs who attacked Corbyn in EDM wanting no investigation into Salsbury before firmly attributing blame, and parliamentary Labour Friends of Israel, I wonder why?"

https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/974192978574094337

NDPP

As Tensions Escalate, UK Expels 23 Russian Diplomats

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/15/ukru-m15.html

"...Once again, warmongering is being used to push the domestic political agenda sharply to the right. In the process, Corbyn's claims to have engineered a shift to the left by Labour have been brutally disproved. The right wing of his party, which Corbyn has done so much to shelter from potential expulsion, is once again preparing to move against him.

May is leading an international offensive to reinforce demands for action against Russia, up to and including a military response, working in close collaboration with the US..."

NDPP

Of a Type Developed By Liars   -  by Craig Murray

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/03/of-a-type-developed-by-l...

"I have now received confirmation from a well placed FCO source Porten Downs scientists are not able to identify the nerve gas as being of Russian manufacture, and have been resentful of the pressure being placed on them to do so..."

'Blatant Russian-Ness'

https://youtu.be/C-Y2pIYeomg

"West shifting blame to Moscow again...now in Skripal."

NDPP

George Galloway's opening monologue on his MOATS radio program..

https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/974723406640877568

"...If you ask 'Cui Bono?' who's the beneficiary of this crime? Absolutely, manifestly, Russia is not the beneficiary of this crime. Indeed, so entirely to the contrary is it, that just about anybody in the world that hates Russia is a much more likely suspect...How stupid can people be?"

progressive17 progressive17's picture

May wants to deflect attention from the absolute bollocks she and her Tory Party have made of the Brexit file.

NDPP

Governments Decree 'Truth' About Skripal - Dissenters Will Be Punished

https://t.co/NiI4SasRbI

"The Skripal incident is now, by chance or by design, part of a much larger campaign about 'western' dominance over 'the east'. Russia, which ended the unilateral moment of US nuclear primacy is currently the main target. The situation is extremely dangerous as any further escalation, in the Middle East, the Ukraine or elsewhere might lead to a war between nuclear armed powers.

The government decreed 'truth' about the Skripal case has many discrepancies. The connection of the case to Russia is much weaker than the propaganda claims. But doubt and dissent about it are not allowed to prevail..."

NDPP

The Blood Libel of the British Government

https://johnhelmer.net/the-blood-libel-of-the-british-government-sic/

"Prime Minister Theresa May committed a blood libel against Russians in the House of Commons last week. This was the allegation that the Russian state and all Russians are murderers. May has subsequently asked the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to correct the record by charging that only one Russian, President Vladimir Putin is a murderer. The Canadian Government was also requested by the British to urgently correct the record May has been making, in refusing to allow the international rules of the Chemical Weapons Convention to decide what happened in the poison attack in Salisbury on March 4..."

Johnson Says UK To Hand Skripal Evidence To OPCW As It Points Finger At Moscow (and vid)

https://on.rt.com/91bt

"Johnson said experts from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) would arrive in the UK on Monday to test samples of the substance. While Johnson said that London would allow the international OPCW experts in the Hague to review the British analysis of the sample, the UK refuses to enact the mechanism in the OPCW that calls for a thorough investigation, the Russian FM noted. He added that 'if you appeal to the organization, you must comply with the provisions of the Convention that stipulate filing a request to us, because we are suspected of being a country of origin and even the country which had used this poisonous agent, and provide us with samples of this agent, so we, together with OPCW experts, can analyze it."

NDPP

'Skripal  Case is a Carefully Constructed Drama' - John Pilger

https://youtu.be/dxRiG8vRRBk

"This is a carefully constructed drama. It's part of the propaganda campaign that is building and building now for several years in order to justify the actions of NATO, Britain and the United States towards Russia. And that's a fact. Russia is ringed by missiles. It has NATO right up on its western border. This is unprecedented. Most people in Britain, in the US don't understand the dangers of this propaganda..."

 

Witch-Hunt of Corbyn Aims To Silence Popular Opposition To Anti-Russia Offensive

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/19/corb-m19.html

"Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn's cautioning against a 'rush to judgement' by blaming the Russian government for poisoning former double agent Sergei Skripal has prompted frenzied media denunciations, accusing him of being a stooge of Vladimir Putin. The BBC's flagship current affairs programme, 'Newsnight', 'discussed' the issue under a panoramic backscreen showing Corbyn in a Photoshopped Russian hat, against a Kremlin background depicted in shades of red..."

Pages