9 comments on “A cautionary tale…….

  1. A very cautionary tale indeed. This “character” Dx has a very good buddy who also posts on another forum in a very similar style

  2. And a very good debate it is to when it is allowed to continue . I follow the logic that they can still use someone to collect but I fear too many people will lose or accept their fate when claims are issued because they do not have the opportunity to explore the facts.

    • not really being fair on that CAG user giving the advise,
      if you care to look properly the defence it is a holding AND no paperwork one,
      which of course correctly puts the claimants of these speculative claims
      to strict proof to provide enforceable paperwork.

      as far as I can see there have been no lost cases on car using that type of defence
      attributed to any judge stating its a holding defence not applicable the defendant looses.

      • But its not the advice being given i really have issues with, but the fact that rather than consider an alternate way of approaching something, which coincidently is advocated by some of the top people in the legal world, they would simply dismiss the argument as silly when it doesnt fall into line with their way of thinking.

        Arent forums supposed to be the arena where people can voice alternate views? even if you disagree with them? Sorry if you feel im being hard on that person but im afraid my view remains.

  3. not really being fair on that CAG user giving the advise,
    if you care to look properly the defence it is a holding AND no paperwork one,
    which of course correctly puts the claimants of these speculative claims
    to strict proof to provide enforceable paperwork.

    as far as I can see there have been no lost cases on car using that type of defence
    attributed to any judge stating its a holding defence not applicable the defendant looses.

  4. but the alternate view was/is being considered – it has a thread now

    but your views might not be exactly correct- that’s why

    from what I can see and from that other resultant thread

    that DX [he or she] HAD to create a new thread because you still insisted on posting
    twice or even three times by the looks of it to hi-jack a running legal thread
    even being told to start your own to discuss your ‘views’

    but you didn’t.

    and I’ve got to admit have looked around cag
    they seem to cope quite successfully with these speculative claims
    and mostly by using the no paperwork defence.

    p’haps you need to revise your own thinking.

  5. Meme
    The idea was ridiculed by at least two posters as FMOTL nonsense , anyone could see it is not either , it is certainly something worth discussing . There has been no discussion.
    As for saying no defeats for this type of defence that is taking a very narrow view . Although in some cases the claims are discontinued in others the agreements are found and the case re opened and lost , its just people don’t report such things

  6. Id just like to add for the record that the poster on the forum in question was NOT ME. I post only under my username “Pt2537” which is my old uni username. I do not post on any forums other than Legal Beagles.

    Please DO NOT leave comments on this thread accusing “me” of posting or ignoring comments made on the forum as it clearly was not me. If people would only read my post above, that should have made it clear from the outset.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s