United Kingdom

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, 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.

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

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

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.

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

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 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.

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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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.

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..."

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

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/

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..."

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

'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

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."

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

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."