Accrington Web
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Accrington Web (https://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Chat (https://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f69/)
-   -   A Law Unto Themselves? (https://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f69/a-law-unto-themselves-35135.html)

WillowTheWhisp 02-12-2007 22:05
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cashman (Post 499859)
i still think jambutty is wrong, as for the "accywebber" that rang him, he never said that, he said the torag. (see i can do it too.):rofl38::rofl38:

Ah, you are quite correct Cashy. In that case it couldn't have been an AccyWebber. We don't have any torags on here. Maybe a few toe rags though. ;)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jambutty (Post 499872)
Pardon me but just exactly where did I mention posters?

I stated a notice at each checkout.
In which case I shall do my best to notice the notices.

andrewb 02-12-2007 22:48
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
I would jump to the chance to argue against Jambutty providing my argument was correct, however..I think Jambutty is correct if rather a few aspects.

I am currently at the University of Hull so can't comment on the content of the actually sign at Asda.

However, I can say that if Asda are enforcing their own 'law' then,

1) It's going to be bad for business
2) It kinda removes the sovereignty of parliament somewhat, as 18 year olds SHOULD be able to buy alcohol, though as rightly said they're not legally obliged too, although again as jambutty said this could fall under age discrimination, and in my opinion rightly should.

I think a lot of people are having a go at him, regardless of the fact that MANY of you probably haven't seen the sign. Fair enough if it is a 'challenge 21' sign, then hes wrong, i can't comment myself, but if you aint seen it then you can't really say for definite can you?

andrewb 02-12-2007 23:14
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Having re-read that I have made various spelling/grammar mistakes, but please take in to account, its 12'ish, I've done two important essays and I'm having a university life ;)

Neil 02-12-2007 23:43
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by derekgas (Post 499839)
Are you going to buy anything when you go willow? I am reasonably sure you may go.
I would be surprised if she bought any booze.

Neil 02-12-2007 23:47
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyfr (Post 499896)
However, I can say that if Asda are enforcing their own 'law' then,

1) It's going to be bad for business
Not as bad as if they lost their license. The Co-Op in Ossy almost did. They were caught out selling to under 18 year old's twice. I seam to remember a checkout operator lost her job because of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyfr (Post 499901)
Having re-read that I have made various spelling/grammar mistakes, but please take in to account, its 12'ish, I've done two important essays and I'm having a university life ;)
I hope you proof read them both :rolleyes::D

shakermaker 03-12-2007 01:30
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Jambutty, you're ability to make the most pointless threads ever known to man linger on for seven pages never ceases to amaze me.


******, I can't help but join in.


Jambutty, would you be kind enough to let us know what was actually written/drawn/scribbled/fingerpainted on the notice you saw at the checkout? You mention the general jist of what was said, but not word for word, this makes it hard to grasp for other members as they have all seen 'Challenge 21' posters which give out clear information.
You feel that the notices do not give the same information as the 'Challenge 21' posters do, thus erroneously making the claim that only customers over the age of 21 may buy alcohol. Well let's see what's on the notices.

Benipete 03-12-2007 03:18
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
The signs say if you look under 21 they will ask for ID for the purchase of alcohol
They do not say that you have to be 21.The reason for this is to stop or lesson the risk of under age drinking. The same applies to tobacco you have to look 18 or you will be asked for I.D.--It's yet another government way of pretending that they care about the youth.It will never work.Though with my grey hair and zimmer frame I don't have a problem

WillowTheWhisp 03-12-2007 06:36
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyfr (Post 499896)
I would jump to the chance to argue against Jambutty providing my argument was correct, however..I think Jambutty is correct if rather a few aspects.

I am currently at the University of Hull so can't comment on the content of the actually sign at Asda.

However, I can say that if Asda are enforcing their own 'law' then,

1) It's going to be bad for business
2) It kinda removes the sovereignty of parliament somewhat, as 18 year olds SHOULD be able to buy alcohol, though as rightly said they're not legally obliged too, although again as jambutty said this could fall under age discrimination, and in my opinion rightly should.

I think a lot of people are having a go at him, regardless of the fact that MANY of you probably haven't seen the sign. Fair enough if it is a 'challenge 21' sign, then hes wrong, i can't comment myself, but if you aint seen it then you can't really say for definite can you?
We've got to have an image of these notices so we know what we're talking about. It's difficult to discuss something we haven't seen, but people have simply tried to point out the reasoning behind erring on the side of caution. ASDA would probably rather lose the business of a few 19-21 year olds than lose their licence to sell alcohol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benipete (Post 499935)
The signs say if you look under 21 they will ask for ID for the purchase of alcohol
They do not say that you have to be 21.The reason for this is to stop or lesson the risk of under age drinking. The same applies to tobacco you have to look 18 or you will be asked for I.D.--It's yet another government way of pretending that they care about the youth.It will never work.Though with my grey hair and zimmer frame I don't have a problem
That's what the 'challenge 21' signs say - of which I gave 2 examples, but Jambutty said those were irrelevant. Have you actually seen the ones in ASDA at Grimshaw Park? Is that what they say?

I don't know what I'll be buying when I go - but I certainly do want to go and have a look. As Neal quite rightly said though, it won't be booze. :D

yerself 03-12-2007 07:39
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by myself
An excerpt from a post by Jambutty in the 'Introduce Yourself' thread.


Even at 70 I still ask questions if I don’t know something.

:D:D:D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Butty
And you point is?
I can't speak for other members of Accyweb but I thought you knew everything.

jambutty 03-12-2007 12:31
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakermaker (Post 499930)
Jambutty, you're ability to make the most pointless threads ever known to man linger on for seven pages never ceases to amaze me.


******, I can't help but join in.


Jambutty, would you be kind enough to let us know what was actually written/drawn/scribbled/fingerpainted on the notice you saw at the checkout? You mention the general jist of what was said, but not word for word, this makes it hard to grasp for other members as they have all seen 'Challenge 21' posters which give out clear information.
You feel that the notices do not give the same information as the 'Challenge 21' posters do, thus erroneously making the claim that only customers over the age of 21 may buy alcohol. Well let's see what's on the notices.
If you think that highlighting the fact that a business drives a coach and horses through the laws of the land is pointless then I despair.

However I didn’t make them linger. I posted my comments on this issue and some people piled in determined to bring me down a peg or two and failed. I just responded in kind.

shakermaker 03-12-2007 12:36
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambutty (Post 500026)
If you think that highlighting the fact that a business drives a coach and horses through the laws of the land is pointless then I despair.
It's substandard attention to detail at worst.
The Challenge 21 posters in store give necessary detail, the notice doesn't.
Yes, ASDA should sort it, but I wouldn't go as far as to say they're manipulating the law :rolleyes:

jambutty 03-12-2007 13:07
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
It turned out that I had reason to go into Blackburn this morning so on the way back I dropped into Asda at Grimshaw Park in Blackburn with my camera in my pocket, with a view to taking a picture of the blue notice.

At each checkout desk (not the self service ones) in front of and behind each checkout person is a Perspex screen. In front of the scanning machine there was large notice stating that alcohol would not be served to under 21’s and a small paper notice next to it was something about ID’s but both were on the side towards the checkout girl. Thus the customer at that checkout would not be able to see it. However the notice on the screen behind her the same blue notice was on the outside where customers in the next checkout point could see it.

That was last Friday. Today the blue notices have gone, but you can see the glue on the screens were they were. Instead, in front of the checkout person there is now a small notice explaining the booze buying rule. But it isn’t easily visible to the customer at that checkout. There is nothing on the other screen. At the end of each checkout bay there is a notice low down below the level of the table where you put your goods, that goes on about ID and under 21’s. It isn’t easily visible though. The colour contrast between the background and the text is poor. Whether it has been there all the time or not I do not know, but I never noticed it before.

I didn’t see any posters like those provided by WillowTheWhisp or any other type displayed anywhere. Even the under 18’s notice at the tobacco kiosk was gone.

I would suggest that the young man who was refused service last Friday, quite rightly complained to the manager. Whether he got his booze or not I don’t know but his complaint must have had some effect because the blue notices have been taken down and replaced with those small ones I mentioned earlier.

So I sent for the manager and asked him what happened to the blue notices.
“We took them down sir, because they did not convey the right message” he replied.
“Was that because my grandson complained last Friday, that in spite of producing ID to show that he was 19 he was unable to buy a bottle of scotch as a Xmas present for me?” I could see from his face that I had struck home but he mumbled something about company policy.
“Could I have one of those blue notices to settle a difference of opinion?”
“Sorry sir they have been destroyed.”

I shrugged my shoulders, said goodbye and left, as there was no point in pursuing the issue.

I should add that the young man was not my grandson, I just said so to establish my right to ask the question.

My point is, has been and always will be that it is the elected government that makes the laws of the land, not a business. I accept that Asda was trying to protect itself from accusations of selling booze to under age kids, but it has no right to pitch the age at 21.

If a notice stating something like “If you look to be UNDER 18 we will require ID to prove that you are not” was published not only would that conform with the law but would also cover Asda.

WillowTheWhisp 03-12-2007 13:19
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
So it would appear that there is little point in me going over there now to have a look. What a shame. I was rather looking forward to it but didn't feel up to it today as I'm still full of a cold, been sneezing my head off all weekend.

However, if the notices were directed towards the staff members then it would imply that they were instructions to the staff members. In other words telling staff members to ask for ID from anyone who looked under 21. Now, if as you are saying they did so and someone proved they were over 18 and was still refused it sounds like possibly the staff had not been trained properly in the reason behind asking for ID from those who look under 21 - therefore a staff instruction to the staff which the staff have possibly misinterpreted has been removed in order to avoid further confusion. It does not mean that ASDA have suddenly changed their policy. Their policy has always been in line with the "Challenge 21" scheme - possibly just not adequately explained to the staff, or possibly misunderstood by some staff. It happens. Look how easy it is to jump to wild conclusions and misunderstand things.

Asda was in fact one of the founding members of the "Challenge 21" scheme and you can read all about it here.

However, if you still wish to complain about them being a law unto themselves perhaps you'd like to complain that they won't sell knives or tobacco to anyone under the age of 18.

Less 03-12-2007 13:51
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
ASDA Press Centre Wednesday 19th July, 2006=First Supermarket To Extend 'Challenge 21' Policy To These Products


ASDA today (19 July 06) announced that it would be the first retailer in the UK to voluntarily raise the minimum age for customers buying knives and cigarettes* from 16 to 18.

The Challenge 21 scheme, that ASDA participates in, will also be extended.

Customers who are lucky enough not to look 21, will be asked to provide proof of age to show that they are 18 or over when buying cigarettes and knives at ASDA stores.

This widens the scheme, which currently includes the sale of alcohol, fireworks and 18 rated dvd’s and computer games.

ASDA’s decision, which comes into force from 1 September 2006, happens at a time when knife crime is on the increase and laws around smoking are being scrutinised.

The move falls during the Government’s consultation on proposals to crack down on teenage smoking (1).





At the same time The Violent Crime Reduction Bill (2), is going through the House of Lords, which includes measures to increase the age at which a person can be sold a knife from 16 to 18.

“Public opinion is changing in these areas and as a responsible retailer we felt we should do something,” said ASDA’s retail director, Andy Clarke,

“By raising the age limit to 18 for the sale of cigarettes and knives, not only are we helping discourage teenage smoking, but also helping our colleagues who sometimes find it hard to judge how old customers are,” added Andy.

ASDA is calling for other large retailers, newsagents and small stores to follow its lead as well as adopt the Challenge 21 policy.





The call to action follows Government research (3) which showed that nearly 70 per cent of 11 to 15 year old smokers say they buy their cigarettes from small retailers such as newsagents and corner shops.

Raising the age limit to 18 and adopting Challenge 21 also protects ASDA’s colleagues who are often faced with the responsibility of accurately identifying if the customer is 16, 17 or 18.
I've quoted it in full but in case anyone thinks I made it up, here's the link to that page:-

Asda Press Centre

Mr Aleks 03-12-2007 14:49
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambutty (Post 500042)
It turned out that I had reason to go into Blackburn this morning so on the way back I dropped into Asda at Grimshaw Park in Blackburn with my camera in my pocket, with a view to taking a picture of the blue notice.

At each checkout desk (not the self service ones) in front of and behind each checkout person is a Perspex screen. In front of the scanning machine there was large notice stating that alcohol would not be served to under 21’s and a small paper notice next to it was something about ID’s but both were on the side towards the checkout girl. Thus the customer at that checkout would not be able to see it. However the notice on the screen behind her the same blue notice was on the outside where customers in the next checkout point could see it.

That was last Friday. Today the blue notices have gone, but you can see the glue on the screens were they were. Instead, in front of the checkout person there is now a small notice explaining the booze buying rule. But it isn’t easily visible to the customer at that checkout. There is nothing on the other screen. At the end of each checkout bay there is a notice low down below the level of the table where you put your goods, that goes on about ID and under 21’s. It isn’t easily visible though. The colour contrast between the background and the text is poor. Whether it has been there all the time or not I do not know, but I never noticed it before.

I didn’t see any posters like those provided by WillowTheWhisp or any other type displayed anywhere. Even the under 18’s notice at the tobacco kiosk was gone.

I would suggest that the young man who was refused service last Friday, quite rightly complained to the manager. Whether he got his booze or not I don’t know but his complaint must have had some effect because the blue notices have been taken down and replaced with those small ones I mentioned earlier.

So I sent for the manager and asked him what happened to the blue notices.
“We took them down sir, because they did not convey the right message” he replied.
“Was that because my grandson complained last Friday, that in spite of producing ID to show that he was 19 he was unable to buy a bottle of scotch as a Xmas present for me?” I could see from his face that I had struck home but he mumbled something about company policy.
“Could I have one of those blue notices to settle a difference of opinion?”
“Sorry sir they have been destroyed.”

I shrugged my shoulders, said goodbye and left, as there was no point in pursuing the issue.

I should add that the young man was not my grandson, I just said so to establish my right to ask the question.

My point is, has been and always will be that it is the elected government that makes the laws of the land, not a business. I accept that Asda was trying to protect itself from accusations of selling booze to under age kids, but it has no right to pitch the age at 21.

If a notice stating something like “If you look to be UNDER 18 we will require ID to prove that you are not” was published not only would that conform with the law but would also cover Asda.

You sad old twit have you not got anything better to do than just moan?

What a shame id have loved to see these signs you say were there but now are not. Strange that isnt it JB

And he would have been laughing at you as you walked away back to your PC to look at something to moan at

jambutty 03-12-2007 16:42
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp (Post 500045)
However, if you still wish to complain about them being a law unto themselves perhaps you'd like to complain that they won't sell knives or tobacco to anyone under the age of 18.
If the law is that the sale of knives and tobacco products is unlawful to anyone under the age of 18, then that is that. Why do you ask?

Oh! I get it! You are being facetious – again! Because you can’t bear the thought that my original post has been spot on.

Grow up!

emamum 03-12-2007 16:46
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
why the big argument about posters??

panther 03-12-2007 16:47
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
if ya think thats daft, my daughter couldnt buy a can of shandy!!
ya have to be 18...LOL

jambutty 03-12-2007 16:49
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleks (Post 500068)
You sad old twit have you not got anything better to do than just moan?
It takes one to know one.

emamum 03-12-2007 16:57
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
i was asked for id the day before my 24th birthday while trying to buy cigarettes. I had my (then) 5 year old my friends 2 babies and another friends 5 year old.. my lad obviously was calling me mummy and the babies were calling me memma, which sounds like mummy. I didnt have any id so was refused the cigarettes..... there is no way on earth i look 15!

Neil 03-12-2007 17:19
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by emamum23 (Post 500099)
why the big argument about posters??
Ok then I will try to explain briefly.
jambutty can not accept that what entwisi said about Asda being able to refuse to sell anything they want to anyone they choose is correct in law. He thinks that because Asda have decided on there own rule for selling alcohol and possibly certain other items that they are trying to cause a Government coup or something.

emamum23 you will soon realise that we have some members on here that just like to moan and be awkward.
jambutty is one of those, he can not and will not ever accept that he could possibly be wrong ( please do find an occasion when he has admitted to be wrong and I will accept that I am ). He will argue until the rest of us get fed up reading his posts and give up replying.

I am by no means attacking him with this post just stating the truth as I and many others I have spoked too see it, just have a read of some of his posts/threads and you will see what I mean.

Tealeaf 03-12-2007 17:46
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil (Post 500119)
jambutty is one of those, he can not and will not ever accept that he could possibly be wrong ( please do find an occasion when he has admitted to be wrong and I will accept that I am ). He will argue until the rest of us get fed up reading his posts and give up replying.
It is implicit in Jambutty's last posting that he now knows he was wrong.

A first-class grovelling apology from him would therefore be in order.

Mr Aleks 03-12-2007 17:50
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambutty (Post 500103)
It takes one to know one.
I am not old as im only 24 so once again your wrong JB pal.

steeljack 03-12-2007 18:55
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil (Post 500119)
Ok then I will try to explain briefly.
jambutty can not accept that what entwisi said about Asda being able to refuse to sell anything they want to anyone they choose is correct in law. .
Now I'm getting confused , am I correct in assuming that a shop can refuse to sell you an item on the shelf just because they dont like the look of your face ? (the case of pub staff serving someone intoxicated is a different matter ) surely if the customer can prove he/she is of or above the legal age they are entitled to the same service as crotchety 70 yr old .
OK I will admit that shops have the right to refuse service and bar undesirable customers from their premises (street people /known shoplifters etc.) but i fail to see how a business can be selective in what it will sell to this person , surely a 20 yr old who is permitted to buy a pound of bacon is also entitled to all other goods offered by the same establishment .Could the same store be allowed to refuse an obese customer the same pound of bacon on health grounds ?

Does a person selling a house have the same rights to tell a prospective buyer , "no I'm not selling my house to you , I dont like the look of you" , I think not :confused: :confused:

Eric 03-12-2007 19:17
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tealeaf (Post 500131)
It is implicit in Jambutty's last posting that he now knows he was wrong.

A first-class grovelling apology from him would therefore be in order.
I suggest that you do not hold your breath:D

WillowTheWhisp 03-12-2007 19:47
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by steeljack (Post 500161)

Does a person selling a house have the same rights to tell a prospective buyer , "no I'm not selling my house to you , I dont like the look of you" , I think not :confused: :confused:
I think that has been done. Whether it is moral or legal I'm not sure though.

cashman 03-12-2007 19:49
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp (Post 500177)
I think that has been done. Whether it is moral or legal I'm not sure though.
i was thinking the same, was it an instance a good few years ago you were thinking of Willow?;)

WillowTheWhisp 03-12-2007 19:56
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Could be. :)

Neil 03-12-2007 20:26
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by steeljack (Post 500161)
Does a person selling a house have the same rights to tell a prospective buyer , "no I'm not selling my house to you , I dont like the look of you" , I think not :confused: :confused:
I don't see why not. You can take your house off the market right up until you sign contracts. It only like gazumping (how ever its spelt) where you sell to someone else at the last minute.

shakermaker 03-12-2007 21:06
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambutty (Post 500103)
It takes one to know one.
A witty saying proves nothing - Voltaire.

Jambutty, perhaps you already know this, perhaps it is intentional, but I can't help but notice that you have this way of being awfully hypocritical. You condemn other members for bringing the argument down to name-calling, and 'dodging' parts of your post to further qualify their own, yet you regularly partake in both activities.

jambutty 03-12-2007 23:41
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil (Post 500119)
Ok then I will try to explain briefly.
jambutty can not accept that what entwisi said about Asda being able to refuse to sell anything they want to anyone they choose is correct in law. He thinks that because Asda have decided on there own rule for selling alcohol and possibly certain other items that they are trying to cause a Government coup or something.

emamum23 you will soon realise that we have some members on here that just like to moan and be awkward.
jambutty is one of those, he can not and will not ever accept that he could possibly be wrong ( please do find an occasion when he has admitted to be wrong and I will accept that I am ). He will argue until the rest of us get fed up reading his posts and give up replying.

I am by no means attacking him with this post just stating the truth as I and many others I have spoked too see it, just have a read of some of his posts/threads and you will see what I mean.
You may not consider that you are not attacking me but it sure sounds like it to me and you are not telling the truth or maybe it is because you can’t read. Or more likely you like a few others can’t stand someone who speaks his mind and worst still from your viewpoint he sticks by his opinion and won’t be swayed by verbal bullying. Some people on here assume that everyone should think like they do and when someone comes along who thinks for himself they get aggravated.

Now be a good cherub and toddle off to read the opening post. It states:
Quote:
I also appreciate that a vendor is under no obligation to sell his wares if the vendor chooses not to do so. But once a customer has indicated that he wants to buy an item and has offered the money to complete the sale, the vendor must then complete the transaction.

Or has that changed too?
But hey why let the truth get in the way of having a dig. But I’m far too thick skinned to let childish behaviour bother me.

jambutty 03-12-2007 23:47
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tealeaf (Post 500131)
It is implicit in Jambutty's last posting that he now knows he was wrong.

A first-class grovelling apology from him would therefore be in order.
My last post stated, “It takes one to know one”. So you are wrong again Tealeaf and yet another example of not engaging brain before opening gob.

jambutty 03-12-2007 23:49
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric (Post 500167)
I suggest that you do not hold your breath:D
I think that it would be an excellent idea if Tealeaf holds his breath. It would stop him mouthing off his usual tripe.

jambutty 03-12-2007 23:52
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakermaker (Post 500214)
A witty saying proves nothing - Voltaire.

Jambutty, perhaps you already know this, perhaps it is intentional, but I can't help but notice that you have this way of being awfully hypocritical. You condemn other members for bringing the argument down to name-calling, and 'dodging' parts of your post to further qualify their own, yet you regularly partake in both activities.
I do not open the name calling. I respond in kind.

shakermaker 03-12-2007 23:57
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambutty (Post 500263)
I do not open the name calling. I respond in kind.
But I was under the impression that your stance was; "I’m far too thick skinned to let childish behaviour bother me." If this is so then why should you dignify such behaviour with an equally child like response?

Neil 04-12-2007 00:07
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambutty (Post 500258)
Or more likely you like a few others can’t stand someone who speaks his mind and worst still from your viewpoint he sticks by his opinion and won’t be swayed by verbal bullying. Some people on here assume that everyone should think like they do and when someone comes along who thinks for himself they get aggravated.
What I don't like about you is that even when you have been proven to be wrong you don't have a strong enough character to hold up your hand and admint it.

It has nothing to do with verbal bullying.

I like a person who speaks his mind and is not afraid of what others might think, I do the same often. The difference between us is that I know when to admit I am wrong , you don't.

Yes you do stick by your viewpoint, you are impossible to change on that. Is that a good quality in a person? I don't think it is. If I say something that is wrong, which often happens, I am the first to admit I was wrong. That is a good quality within my character, I have others but don't like to brag.

I really do hope that not everyone thinks the same way as I do. That would be boring don't you think? They would probably need therapy as well ;)

BLACKBURN RAVER 04-12-2007 01:37
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
get off the guys back ffs....his opinions differ from the click, so what ???

your like chuffin vultures you lot...:mad::mad::mad:

Eric 04-12-2007 02:02
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLACKBURN RAVER (Post 500286)
get off the guys back ffs....his opinions differ from the click, so what ???

your like chuffin vultures you lot...:mad::mad::mad:
Somehow, I don't think JB resents the cut and thrust of argument. He's a big boy, he has opinions, and he is not afraid of voicing them. More power to him.

LancYorkYankee 04-12-2007 02:51
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
And another positive; jambutty has surpassed the 2000 post count (and no, not only in this thread you jolly jokers!).

Heck, after reading through all that I had to find something to comment on!:p

Brian

WillowTheWhisp 04-12-2007 09:50
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLACKBURN RAVER (Post 500286)
get off the guys back ffs....his opinions differ from the click, so what ???

your like chuffin vultures you lot...:mad::mad::mad:
It's not a case of opinions. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and I would defend anyone's right to their own opinion whether I agreed with it or not.

This however, is about facts and the fact is that what Jambutty claimed was a fact was in fact an erroneous interpretation of what he perceived to be the facts.

Having had this pointed out to him by numerous people he still stubbornly persists in insisting that everyone else is wrong and he is right.

If he had been able to prove me wrong I would have graciously admitted my mistake - something he seems unable to do.

BLACKBURN RAVER 04-12-2007 11:45
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp (Post 500335)
It's not a case of opinions. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and I would defend anyone's right to their own opinion whether I agreed with it or not.

This however, is about facts and the fact is that what Jambutty claimed was a fact was in fact an erroneous interpretation of what he perceived to be the facts.

Having had this pointed out to him by numerous people he still stubbornly persists in insisting that everyone else is wrong and he is right.

If he had been able to prove me wrong I would have graciously admitted my mistake - something he seems unable to do.
but one FACT is NONE of you lot saw that poster he claimed to have seen,you all jumped on his back and you presumed you knew the poster in question, but that was proved to be incorrect, so where is YOUR appology ?...:confused:

panther 04-12-2007 11:52
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
2 Attachment(s)
now now children, stop the fighting Attachment 10478anyone would think ya all under 18:rolleyes:


now all come together and give a big hug!!;):p
Attachment 10479Attachment 10479Attachment 10479Attachment 10479Attachment 10479:Banane47:

entwisi 04-12-2007 12:04
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
I also appreciate that a vendor is under no obligation to sell his wares if the vendor chooses not to do so. But once a customer has indicated that he wants to buy an item and has offered the money to complete the sale, the vendor must then complete the transaction.

Or has that changed too?
Never changed but it is not the case. Until the vendor accepts money no contract exists. Therefore no contract, no legal standing on either side. Equally you can withdraw your offer of money at any point up to the point of a contract being in place.

e.g.

I come to buy a car from you. I look around said car and think its wonderful, I verbally offer (lets imagine a real value) £2000. you accept but no money changes hands. I go off to get a loan, its refused, You have no contract with me so I can pull out. or say its agreed but I find another car better suited for less, again I can pull out as no contract is in place. Equally, you agree a price with me, then 10 minutes later someone turns up and offers £3K. You are quite in your rights legally to take that money. (Morally you stink but hey thats not what we are discussing here).

Equally with ASDA, they put things on the shelf and you are 'invited to treat'. Untill they take your money from you they can pull out at any time without reason. Even after money has changed hands, if it can be proven by ASDA that the price was erroneous and it is clearly an error they can cancel teh contract(it is up to them to prove that the purchaser would have 'known' teh price was erroneous but thats a different discussion again).

e.g. a website advertises an item and instead of it being £999.00 its incorrectly priced at £9.99. even if they have taken your order, accepted money and provided a receipt they can cancel the contract as it is clearly an error. In a relatively recent case Kodak advertised a camera which retailed at that time at £249 for £99. Lots of people bought one(me included). Kodak had taken our money in that they had provided an email saying this is your receipt. The website had also done a credit 'hold' on our debit/credit cards. 2 days later they sent an email saying it wouldn't be honoured. however when pressed in law the reasoning was that this was a model that was a)due for replacement in 2 months (end of line) b) had reported battery life issues and c) had one or 2 spuriously bad reviews it was deemd that teh price could legitimately considered a 'normal' discount in order to clear stocks of an unpopular model. Kodak capitulated before it went to court as they didn't want a precedent to be set. The key things taht won for teh consumers was that we had a 'contract' as Kodak had accepted our money by processing the payments, had given a receipt and as described above it was deemed a fair bargain.

blazey 04-12-2007 12:27
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambutty (Post 499774)
Because I cannot remember his name. Satisfied?

But you still read what I write and pass comment. So who is the fool?

When you are big enough, old enough and ugly enough you can tell me to shut up. Until that day just go away and pick up your dummy that you have spit out and stick it back in your gob.
It just annoys me that people can't be bothered to actually CHECK the law before they mouth off about what they THINK is the law.

And I dont think I will ever be as equally big, ugly or old as you, but at least I know I will always be more intelligent than you.

Why dont you just get over the fact that asda can sell or refuse to sell their product to whoever they want.

Forget about using houses as example, use pedigree dog breeders. If a dog breeder invites you to his house to view the dogs, and implies he is willing sell to you there and then, but upon your visit realises you are not a suitable owner for whatever reason, maybe for example the dog doesn't like cats and you own a cat, who knows, whatever reason, then he simply has the right to send you away. There is no law stating that he must accept your money when they offer to buy something that you have put up for sale.

You want a real example? Here is the case that counters what you are trying to argue. When you have finished reading it hopefully you will be enlightened to the position of the law and stop being a windbag as Ianto would put it.

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd

Queen's Bench Division
16 July 1952

Subject: Sale of Goods
Keywords: Criminal liability; Offer and acceptance; Pharmacists; Poisons
Summary: sale by or under supervision of registered pharmacist
Abstract: It is a well-established principle that the mere fact that a shop-keeper exposes goods which indicate to the public that he is willing to treat does not amount to an offer to sell. The defendants had adopted a "self-service" system in their shop, which consisted in allowing persons who resorted to the shop to go to shelves where goods were exposed for sale and marked with the price. They took the article required and went to the cash desk, where the cashier or assistant saw the article, stated the price, and took the money. In one of their departments there were on certain shelves ointments and drugs coming within Part I of the Poisons List. Before any person could leave with what he had bought in that department he had to pass the scrutiny and supervision of a qualified pharmacist. The question for the opinion of the court was whether each sale was effected in accordance with the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933 s.18(1)(a)(iii) which provides that the sale of any poison included in Part I of the Poisons List shall not be lawful, unless "the sale is effected by, or under the supervision of, a registered pharmacist." Held, the mere fact that a customer picked up a bottle of medicine from a shelf did not amount to an acceptance of an offer to sell, but was an offer by the customer to buy; there was no sale until the buyer's offer to buy was accepted by the acceptance of the purchase price, and that took place under the supervision of a pharmacist; therefore, there should be judgment for the defendants.

entwisi 04-12-2007 12:59
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
heh, not often that I agree with Blazey! :D

blazey 04-12-2007 16:10
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by entwisi (Post 500389)
heh, not often that I agree with Blazey! :D
Well when I sit in the library constantly and I have an extensive case database at my fingers lol I can find the correct principle of law quite easily, and I also happen to be studying contract law at the moment lol my assignments on it for over xmas, its all i have time to actually read at the moment!

And there is nothing worse than being unclear on the correct principle of law. Dont want jambutty showing himself up in asda when he has a hissy fit over a sign, especially when in appearance he seems to be at least double the age restriction they apply to alcohol sales anyway. :rolleyes:

WillowTheWhisp 04-12-2007 16:33
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLACKBURN RAVER (Post 500356)
but one FACT is NONE of you lot saw that poster he claimed to have seen,you all jumped on his back and you presumed you knew the poster in question, but that was proved to be incorrect, so where is YOUR appology ?...:confused:

No, we didn't see the poster, notice or whatever it is that Jambutty claims to have seen and that is half the problem.

Yes, I agree that I did make an assumption that he had possibly misunderstood the "Challenge 21" posters which exist all over the place and are a national scheme. That was why I had wanted to see these signs for myself to be sure that I knew what he was referring to.

I wasn't able to go earlier as I have been full of a cold but I did intend to go and look at the Asda in question tomorrow, when I will be in Blackburn for another reason, but he has since informed us that they have been removed.

Now as there is nothing to look at I would have just let the whole thing go but seeing as how you are prolonging the saga by insisting that we now all owe Jambutty an apology I have just phoned Asda at Grimshaw park in order to ascertain exactly what these signs looked like and clarify exactly what they did say, straight from the horses mouth so to speak.

The reaction from Asda was one of utter bewilderment. The only signs/posters/notices that Asda at Grimshaw park have ever used I am told are the common "Challenge 21" posters with which we are all familiar (and if you're not then I suggest you check out my previous posts) and which are all over the place in supermarkets and off licences. When I told them that no, I wasn't meaning those posters I was meaning the little notices at the checkouts which were facing the cashiers and which have recently been removed, I was told that there have never been any such little notices, that nothing has been recently removed and that the only signs or posters regarding the sale of alcohol are the ones which say that if you look under 21 you will be asked to prove that you are over 18 before you can buy booze.

Now as Jambutty brought up this saga the onus really is on him to prove that Asda has or had a policy of refusing to sell alcohol to people under 21 because according to what they've just told me they don't and never have done. It has always been the legal age of 18 which is the requirement in their store.

blazey 04-12-2007 16:37
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp (Post 500417)
No, we didn't see the poster, notice or whatever it is that Jambutty claims to have seen and that is half the problem.

Yes, I agree that I did make an assumption that he had possibly misunderstood the "Challenge 21" posters which exist all over the place and are a national scheme. That was why I had wanted to see these signs for myself to be sure that I knew what he was referring to.

I wasn't able to go earlier as I have been full of a cold but I did intend to go and look at the Asda in question tomorrow, when I will be in Blackburn for another reason, but he has since informed us that they have been removed.

Now as there is nothing to look at I would have just let the whole thing go but seeing as how you are prolonging the saga by insisting that we now all owe Jambutty and apology I have just phoned Asda at Grimshaw park in order to ascertain exactly what these signs looked like and clarify exactly what they did say, straight from the horses mouth so to speak.

The reaction from Asda was one of utter bewilderment. The only signs/posters/notices that Asda at Grimshaw park have ever used I am told are the common "Challenge 21" posters with which we are all familiar (and if you're not then I suggest you check out my previous posts) and which are all over the place in supermarkets and off licences. When I told them that no, I wasn't meaning those posters I was meaning the little notices at the checkouts which were facing the cashiers and which have recently been removed I was told that there have never been any such little notices, that nothing has been recently removed and that the only signs or posters regarding the sale of alcohol are the ones which say that if you look under 21 you will be asked to prove that you are over 18 before you can buy booze.

Now as Jambutty brought up this saga the onus really is on him to prove that Asda refuse to sell alcohol to people under 21 because according to what they've just told me they don't and never have done. It has always been the legal age of 18 which is the requirement in their store.
Even if their requirement was 21 years of age, I think its important to point out that Entwisti was correct and it was unfair of people to be nasty to him and criticise him in such a harsh way.

Either way, it doesnt even matter to most people on the forum anyway as most people are over that age, and can buy alcohol regardless :D

WillowTheWhisp 04-12-2007 16:45
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Yes Blazey, I agree with you there.

Perhaps you could also clarify for me something which I was told regarding the manner in which a person chooses to pay. If for instance someone decided to pay for their shopping with bags of 2p pieces they can be refused and no amount of insistence that they are legal tender can force the shopkeeper to accept them.

MargaretR 04-12-2007 16:52
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Wikepedia quote -
"In the 19th century, gold coins were legal tender to any amount, silver coins were not legal tender for sums over 2 pounds, nor bronze for sums over 1 shilling.

This provision was retained in revised form at the introduction of decimal currency, and the Coinage Act 1971 laid down that coins denominated above 10 pence became legal tender for payment not exceeding 10 pounds, coins denominated not more than 10 pence became legal tender for payment not exceeding 5 pounds, and bronze coins became legal tender for payment not exceeding 20 pence."

blazey 04-12-2007 17:02
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Its funny you should mention this, I dont need to search for this because I already have an answer already, and you shouldn't really use wikipedia to find out what the law is, its not classed as a reliable source!!

I once got refuse onto the bus because I wanted to pay in change instead of paying with a £10 note, mainly for the bus drivers convenience rather than my own. He showed me up in front of the passengers, and this was a morning service that was full, and made a fuss for about 10 minutes about it.

I complained (being the dragon that I am) to Lancashire United and they said that this kind of policy was an old one, and they used to be able to accept no more than 21pence (or 23, cant quite recall the exact silly number) and I wanted to pay 30 pence.

His manager apologised though and said this kind of policy is just old fashioned, and bear in mind POLICY, not law, and they no longer use it. Any place that still uses this kind of policy is a bit rare to come by, and I dont see why they shouldnt take you're money for carrier bags as they're the price of coppers anyway, so if they start showing you up, simply complain loudly about them not accepting the value of the customers money and demand to speak to their superviser/manager, they'll soon accept your money, which is what I had to do to get on the bus!

MargaretR 04-12-2007 17:07
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Coinage Act 1971 (c.24) - Statute Law Database
Checked the wikipedia entry with the Government website-- wiki quote is correct

blazey 04-12-2007 17:15
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] (Post 500441)
Coinage Act 1971 (c.24) - Statute Law Database
Checked the wikipedia entry with the Government website-- wiki quote is correct
I dont think its still in much use though because i've typed the act into the west law database and its not got a 'blue C' next to it which means current, but on the other hand its not got the red square near it either which means it no longer stands.

I don't think the manager of any shop would refuse your change though just for carrier bags, and as far as my shop work experience goes, I've never been taught to use this policy, so I still think its just an old fashioned law that isn't common anymore.

WillowTheWhisp 04-12-2007 17:22
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Where did the carrier bags come from? :D I think you misunderstood what I said. I mean offering bags of 2p coins to pay for £50 worth of shopping!

MargaretR 04-12-2007 17:25
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazey (Post 500444)
I dont think its still in much use though because i've typed the act into the west law database and its not got a 'blue C' next to it which means current, but on the other hand its not got the red square near it either which means it no longer stands.

I don't think the manager of any shop would refuse your change though just for carrier bags, and as far as my shop work experience goes, I've never been taught to use this policy, so I still think its just an old fashioned law that isn't common anymore.
The fact that it is still shown on this site indicates that it is still current law
Coinage Act 1971
https://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/Search...ll+Legislation

blazey 04-12-2007 17:30
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] (Post 500454)
The fact that it is still shown on this site indicates that it is still current law
Coinage Act 1971
https://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/Search...ll+Legislation
I know it's still law but on this database that we are to use (west law and lexisnexis) its saying its not out of date, but its not got the right icons next to it to show that its binding so to speak.

Have you ever been told u cant pay more than 20p in coppers because you're breaking the law?
Would you ever consider reporting a shop for breaking the law if you saw them accept more than 20p in coppers?
What response do you think you would get, or what kind of punishment do you think the shop would get?

I think it'd be dropped due to it being an outdated law that nobody has bothered to change, there are loads of laws still in statute that aren't in practice, I'm pretty sure there was a thread about some only last week?


I'd link the database and show you what I mean but you have to be a subscriber to them to have access, but both are the ones used by solicitors and barristers because they are updated regularly, and I'm just reading what it says on there.

blazey 04-12-2007 17:37
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
I've looked into it a bit further and some of the sections have been removed and some have scary exclamation marks next to them which indicates they have problems with the section and they need revising.

The statute just clearly has 'issues' :p

yerself 04-12-2007 17:45
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Some words of wisdom for Mr. Fruit Conserve Sandwich:

Learn to accept in silence the minor aggravations, cultivate the gift of taciturnity, and consume your own smoke with an extra draft of hard work, so that those about you may not be annoyed with the dust and soot of your complaints. ~William Osler

jambutty 04-12-2007 18:22
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakermaker (Post 500265)
But I was under the impression that your stance was; "I’m far too thick skinned to let childish behaviour bother me." If this is so then why should you dignify such behaviour with an equally child like response?
Being thick skinned means that I don’t allow the insults and name calling to affect me. They are water off a duck’s back. That doesn’t mean that I forgo the right to answer back in kind if I choose to and on some occasions I choose to.

jambutty 04-12-2007 19:09
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by entwisi (Post 500360)
Never changed but it is not the case. Until the vendor accepts money no contract exists. Therefore no contract, no legal standing on either side. Equally you can withdraw your offer of money at any point up to the point of a contract being in place.

e.g.

I come to buy a car from you. I look around said car and think its wonderful, I verbally offer (lets imagine a real value) £2000. you accept but no money changes hands. I go off to get a loan, its refused, You have no contract with me so I can pull out. or say its agreed but I find another car better suited for less, again I can pull out as no contract is in place. Equally, you agree a price with me, then 10 minutes later someone turns up and offers £3K. You are quite in your rights legally to take that money. (Morally you stink but hey thats not what we are discussing here).

Equally with ASDA, they put things on the shelf and you are 'invited to treat'. Untill they take your money from you they can pull out at any time without reason. Even after money has changed hands, if it can be proven by ASDA that the price was erroneous and it is clearly an error they can cancel teh contract(it is up to them to prove that the purchaser would have 'known' teh price was erroneous but thats a different discussion again).

e.g. a website advertises an item and instead of it being £999.00 its incorrectly priced at £9.99. even if they have taken your order, accepted money and provided a receipt they can cancel the contract as it is clearly an error. In a relatively recent case Kodak advertised a camera which retailed at that time at £249 for £99. Lots of people bought one(me included). Kodak had taken our money in that they had provided an email saying this is your receipt. The website had also done a credit 'hold' on our debit/credit cards. 2 days later they sent an email saying it wouldn't be honoured. however when pressed in law the reasoning was that this was a model that was a)due for replacement in 2 months (end of line) b) had reported battery life issues and c) had one or 2 spuriously bad reviews it was deemd that teh price could legitimately considered a 'normal' discount in order to clear stocks of an unpopular model. Kodak capitulated before it went to court as they didn't want a precedent to be set. The key things taht won for teh consumers was that we had a 'contract' as Kodak had accepted our money by processing the payments, had given a receipt and as described above it was deemed a fair bargain.
Just what are the facts governing sales of good in shops? They are like I stated at the outset with a proviso of “Or has that changed too?”

No one has come back with evidence that my opinion is wrong. Examples are not evidence.

But I can give examples as well, although not evidence it backs up my belief.

Several years ago on a Saturday my old telly died in a puff of smoke. I went to Comet, choose the set that I wanted to buy but was told that none were in stock. The shop assistant rang another branch in Wigan and came back to say that they had some in stock and they would send one over on Monday. That was no good to me ‘cos it was a Saturday and Match of the Day was on in the evening and an FA cup game on the Sunday so I selected another TV paid for it and took it home. Take note that they were prepared to send a set from another branch.

A couple of years or so later I was back in Comet looking for a replacement to my 20+ years old Pioneer separates HiFi system. The cost of separates was prohibitive so I opted for the modern stereo systems with CD player, cassette, turntable etc. I found just what I was looking for at £231.xx.

I called an assistant over told her I would like one of those please. She took the card, went to a computer terminal and after a short while came back to say they had no more in stock and the display was not for sale. I wouldn’t have bought it anyway. Another similar system was £340 and lesser ones were in the £250 range at the time I thought that £340 was too much. Whilst I pondered the assistant went back to the computer terminal and came back to inform me that they had some in stock at the Rochdale branch.

“I’ll pay for it now and you can ask Rochdale to send one over and I will come and collect it tomorrow” I volunteered.
“Sorry sir we don’t transfer stock between branches. You can always go to Rochdale and get one for yourself” she added brightly.

So I drove over to Rochdale located the same model and was astounded to discover that it was £321.xx.
“This same model is £231.xx at the Blackburn branch” I informed the salesperson.
“No sir all prices are the same in Comet unless they are manager’s specials or ex-display”

I bought the system and went home.

Next day I went back to Comet and lo and behold the system that I had wanted to buy was now priced at £321.xx.

I left with the thought in my mind that the salesgirl in Blackburn had been quick witted enough to spot that the price on the ticket was different to that on the computer and came up with the none in stock excuse as a means of not having to sell the goods at the £231.xx price because I had offered to buy it and had the cash in hand. Meaning that once I had offered to buy it and produced the cash in my hand to enable me to do so, which I did, Comet would have been obliged to sell me the unit at that price.

I accept if the ticket had stated something ridiculous like £95 that would have been obvious that it had been priced wrongly and they could have stated so and withdrew it on the grounds that it was obvious that the price was wrong. But priced at £231.xx it was similar to other models so to me the price seemed to be about right for that one.

A year or so later I was back in Comet wanting to buy a vacuum cleaner because mine had given up the ghost.

I choose a Henry one but sadly they had none in stock. They were very popular at the time. You’ll never guess what the assistant told me.

“Would you like to pay for it now and we will have one sent over from Wigan and you can collect it tomorrow.”

All that points to the fact that once a customer has indicated that he wants to buy a particular item and produces the money to do so, the sale is clinched except for exceptional circumstances like an obvious wrong price.

But then again wasn’t there something many years ago when Hoover were offering something at a ridiculously low price and thousands of people applied to buy it? When Hoover tried to get out of making the sale, the court judgement was that they had to honour the offer. It cost Hoover millions and some high up’s job. Or in other words once the customer had indicated that he wanted to buy the item and produced the cash to do so, the sale had to go through.

I notice that your last paragraph bears out what I have stated. In that once an offer has been made and intent to pay established the deal must go through.

jambutty 04-12-2007 19:12
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp (Post 500335)
This however, is about facts and the fact is that what Jambutty claimed was a fact was in fact an erroneous interpretation of what he perceived to be the facts.
Prove it! I have to write a few more words because Prove it! is too short to be accepted.

jambutty 04-12-2007 19:29
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazey (Post 500375)
It just annoys me that people can't be bothered to actually CHECK the law before they mouth off about what they THINK is the law.

And I dont think I will ever be as equally big, ugly or old as you, but at least I know I will always be more intelligent than you.

Why dont you just get over the fact that asda can sell or refuse to sell their product to whoever they want.

Forget about using houses as example, use pedigree dog breeders. If a dog breeder invites you to his house to view the dogs, and implies he is willing sell to you there and then, but upon your visit realises you are not a suitable owner for whatever reason, maybe for example the dog doesn't like cats and you own a cat, who knows, whatever reason, then he simply has the right to send you away. There is no law stating that he must accept your money when they offer to buy something that you have put up for sale.

You want a real example? Here is the case that counters what you are trying to argue. When you have finished reading it hopefully you will be enlightened to the position of the law and stop being a windbag as Ianto would put it.

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd

Queen's Bench Division
16 July 1952

Subject: Sale of Goods
Keywords: Criminal liability; Offer and acceptance; Pharmacists; Poisons
Summary: sale by or under supervision of registered pharmacist
Abstract: It is a well-established principle that the mere fact that a shop-keeper exposes goods which indicate to the public that he is willing to treat does not amount to an offer to sell. The defendants had adopted a "self-service" system in their shop, which consisted in allowing persons who resorted to the shop to go to shelves where goods were exposed for sale and marked with the price. They took the article required and went to the cash desk, where the cashier or assistant saw the article, stated the price, and took the money. In one of their departments there were on certain shelves ointments and drugs coming within Part I of the Poisons List. Before any person could leave with what he had bought in that department he had to pass the scrutiny and supervision of a qualified pharmacist. The question for the opinion of the court was whether each sale was effected in accordance with the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933 s.18(1)(a)(iii) which provides that the sale of any poison included in Part I of the Poisons List shall not be lawful, unless "the sale is effected by, or under the supervision of, a registered pharmacist." Held, the mere fact that a customer picked up a bottle of medicine from a shelf did not amount to an acceptance of an offer to sell, but was an offer by the customer to buy; there was no sale until the buyer's offer to buy was accepted by the acceptance of the purchase price, and that took place under the supervision of a pharmacist; therefore, there should be judgment for the defendants.
Wooo! Who’s getting all bitter and twisted?

Re your doggie tale. Pun intended.

Would that be before or after the client indicated that he would buy the puppy? If you are going to quote an example then at least have the intelligence to quote all pertaining facts. I think that that also answers your “I am more intelligent than you” jibe. I had the intelligence to spot your error. You were stupid enough (and therefore of lesser intelligence) not to include a salient point. Thus it could be argued that I am more intelligent than you are. Not that I give a tinkers cuss anyway.

Re also the windbag jibe. It does take one to know one you know. So welcome to the windbag club. I elect you as president or at least chief windbag.

As for your pathetic attempt to make your case with the pharmacy thing. First of all that was in 1952 and there have been many changes to many laws. Secondly it relates to Poisons, where quite rightly the purchaser should establish his legitimate use before the sale is effected. I didn’t notice any age being mentioned and this topic is about the a person being refused the sale of alcohol because of age.

jambutty 04-12-2007 19:34
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp (Post 500417)
No, we didn't see the poster, notice or whatever it is that Jambutty claims to have seen and that is half the problem.

Yes, I agree that I did make an assumption that he had possibly misunderstood the "Challenge 21" posters which exist all over the place and are a national scheme. That was why I had wanted to see these signs for myself to be sure that I knew what he was referring to.

I wasn't able to go earlier as I have been full of a cold but I did intend to go and look at the Asda in question tomorrow, when I will be in Blackburn for another reason, but he has since informed us that they have been removed.

Now as there is nothing to look at I would have just let the whole thing go but seeing as how you are prolonging the saga by insisting that we now all owe Jambutty an apology I have just phoned Asda at Grimshaw park in order to ascertain exactly what these signs looked like and clarify exactly what they did say, straight from the horses mouth so to speak.

The reaction from Asda was one of utter bewilderment. The only signs/posters/notices that Asda at Grimshaw park have ever used I am told are the common "Challenge 21" posters with which we are all familiar (and if you're not then I suggest you check out my previous posts) and which are all over the place in supermarkets and off licences. When I told them that no, I wasn't meaning those posters I was meaning the little notices at the checkouts which were facing the cashiers and which have recently been removed, I was told that there have never been any such little notices, that nothing has been recently removed and that the only signs or posters regarding the sale of alcohol are the ones which say that if you look under 21 you will be asked to prove that you are over 18 before you can buy booze.

Now as Jambutty brought up this saga the onus really is on him to prove that Asda has or had a policy of refusing to sell alcohol to people under 21 because according to what they've just told me they don't and never have done. It has always been the legal age of 18 which is the requirement in their store.
If you won’t take my word for it why should we take yours? Did you write down what was said verbatim? Did you record the conversation? No? Then you comment has no more validity than mine.

jambutty 04-12-2007 19:36
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazey (Post 500422)
Even if their requirement was 21 years of age, I think its important to point out that Entwisti was correct and it was unfair of people to be nasty to him and criticise him in such a harsh way.

Either way, it doesnt even matter to most people on the forum anyway as most people are over that age, and can buy alcohol regardless :D
Yup! Me to. At 70 I am well over the age but I don’t use the stuff anyway. And to think that you declared in an earlier post that you wouldn’t want to live to my age.

emamum 04-12-2007 19:43
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
"Secondly it relates to Poisons, where quite rightly the purchaser should establish his legitimate use before the sale is effected. I didn’t notice any age being mentioned and this topic is about the a person being refused the sale of alcohol because of age." (jambutty)

alcohol is poisonous, when given to the wrong person

jambutty 04-12-2007 19:45
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] (Post 500434)
Wikepedia quote -
"In the 19th century, gold coins were legal tender to any amount, silver coins were not legal tender for sums over 2 pounds, nor bronze for sums over 1 shilling.

This provision was retained in revised form at the introduction of decimal currency, and the Coinage Act 1971 laid down that coins denominated above 10 pence became legal tender for payment not exceeding 10 pounds, coins denominated not more than 10 pence became legal tender for payment not exceeding 5 pounds, and bronze coins became legal tender for payment not exceeding 20 pence."
Wikepdia! Now there’s the fountain of all knowledge. It is well know that Wikepdia is not necessarily as accurate as people might imagine. Unless it makes a reference to with a link to a proven accurate source. Because I understand, but do not know for sure, that anyone can log in and amend any article.

There is a limit on how many coins of the same denomination you can offer for it to be legal tender. I have no idea what those limits are in this day and age. The quoted act was in 1971 that is nearly 37 years ago. Could not have found something closer to today?

West Ender 04-12-2007 19:49
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
An instance of when a little knowledge (of the law) can be a dangerous thing (for the shopkeeper):-

About 33 years ago, when we were having a lot of power cuts, I wanted a big brass oil lamp, functional and ornamental. My husband saw one in an ironmonger's shop window, in Durham City where we lived at the time, priced at £12 so he went in to buy it. The assistant had a look and said she was really sorry but the one in the window had the wrong price on it and it should be £20. My husband said he was sure the law said they were obliged to sell the item at the advertised price but the shop manager said no it didn't.

At that moment a friend of ours, a police superintendent, walked into the shop - in uniform (he'd popped in to buy a screwdiver on his way home from work). My husband called him over and asked if he was right to demand the lower price, to which our friend replied, "Oh yes, definitely." Faced with a policeman's word the manager sold my husband the lamp for £12.

Outside the shop my husband asked our friend if he had quoted the law correctly, to which the friend replied that he really had no idea; he was, at the time, in charge of Traffic. I have a feeling the shopkeeper was in the right - but I was happy to have the lamp, which I've still got. A case of Might (in a uniform) is Right. ;)

blazey 04-12-2007 19:56
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by West Ender (Post 500507)
An instance of when a little knowledge (of the law) can be a dangerous thing (for the shopkeeper):-

About 33 years ago, when we were having a lot of power cuts, I wanted a big brass oil lamp, functional and ornamental. My husband saw one in an ironmonger's shop window, in Durham City where we lived at the time, priced at £12 so he went in to buy it. The assistant had a look and said she was really sorry but the one in the window had the wrong price on it and it should be £20. My husband said he was sure the law said they were obliged to sell the item at the advertised price but the shop manager said no it didn't.

At that moment a friend of ours, a police superintendent, walked into the shop - in uniform (he'd popped in to buy a screwdiver on his way home from work). My husband called him over and asked if he was right to demand the lower price, to which our friend replied, "Oh yes, definitely." Faced with a policeman's word the manager sold my husband the lamp for £12.

Outside the shop my husband asked our friend if he had quoted the law correctly, to which the friend replied that he really had no idea; he was, at the time, in charge of Traffic. I have a feeling the shopkeeper was in the right - but I was happy to have the lamp, which I've still got. A case of Might (in a uniform) is Right. ;)
Well based on the law we talked about earlier the shop keeper would have to have been correct, because at the point u asked for the item you where only in the negotiation stage of a contract, and if he wishes he can change his mind about the price just as you can change your mind about buying it.

blazey 04-12-2007 19:58
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambutty (Post 500504)
Wikepdia! Now there’s the fountain of all knowledge. It is well know that Wikepdia is not necessarily as accurate as people might imagine. Unless it makes a reference to with a link to a proven accurate source. Because I understand, but do not know for sure, that anyone can log in and amend any article.

There is a limit on how many coins of the same denomination you can offer for it to be legal tender. I have no idea what those limits are in this day and age. The quoted act was in 1971 that is nearly 37 years ago. Could not have found something closer to today?
It doesnt matter how old the legislation is, the reason it is such old law is because of two reasons, either 1. its good law and doesnt need amending 2. nobody has got round to it yet (the law changes very slowly)

Some of the relevent cases I'm studying right now are from the 19th century. Of course peope criticise old law by saying it may not apply to todays circumstances, and sometimes it doesnt, but in general it does. I dont think anyone would be arrested for accepting over 20p in coppers though, so I think it is useless law.

West Ender 04-12-2007 20:10
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazey (Post 500512)
Well based on the law we talked about earlier the shop keeper would have to have been correct, because at the point u asked for the item you where only in the negotiation stage of a contract, and if he wishes he can change his mind about the price just as you can change your mind about buying it.

Ooh, I'm glad you weren't around then. I don't think I'd have got my lamp. :D

BLACKBURN RAVER 04-12-2007 20:22
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by emamum23 (Post 500503)
"alcohol is poisonous, when given to the wrong person

suppose you could say alcohol is poisonous when given to ANY person..:rolleyes:

WillowTheWhisp 04-12-2007 20:26
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambutty (Post 500498)
If you won’t take my word for it why should we take yours? Did you write down what was said verbatim? Did you record the conversation? No? Then you comment has no more validity than mine.

Well, everyone else is free to phone Asda for themselves if they wish.

BLACKBURN RAVER 04-12-2007 20:34
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
lets fin this folks, its getting tedious now ...

heres the line :p



__________________________________________________ ________

WillowTheWhisp 04-12-2007 20:37
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLACKBURN RAVER (Post 500536)
lets fin this folks, its getting tedious now ...

heres the line :p



__________________________________________________ ________


rofl. Did you mean to leave the gap in it? :D

Neil 04-12-2007 20:57
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp (Post 500538)
rofl. Did you mean to leave the gap in it? :D
Maybe not but it let some posts slip past. :D

BLACKBURN RAVER 04-12-2007 21:22
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp (Post 500538)
rofl. Did you mean to leave the gap in it? :D

oooops nope ;)

il try a shorter one :p
_______________________

Eric 04-12-2007 21:38
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Are we done yet?

MargaretR 04-12-2007 21:40
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
yes-------------

emamum 04-12-2007 21:42
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
are you sure?

Tealeaf 06-12-2007 13:53
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
We are not quite done yet, because a funny old thing happened last night. I had switched on the radio very late and just caught a few scattered words about a shooting in a shop and nine people dead.

"Bloody hell!" I thought "Jambutty has run berserk with a sawn-off shotgun in the Grimshaw Park Asda"

Luckily for the people of Blackburn it was not the case.

BERNADETTE 06-12-2007 21:22
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Talk about going overboard, my daughter was buying some cans in Asda on Tuesday and it took her ten minutes to convince them she was old enough. By the way she is thirty one!!!!

BERNADETTE 06-12-2007 21:41
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BERNADETTE (Post 501233)
Talk about going overboard, my daughter was buying some cans in Asda on Tuesday and it took her ten minutes to convince them she was old enough. By the way she is thirty one!!!!
She must get her youthful looks off her mum:p:p

Neil 07-12-2007 08:46
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BERNADETTE (Post 501233)
Talk about going overboard, my daughter was buying some cans in Asda on Tuesday and it took her ten minutes to convince them she was old enough. By the way she is thirty one!!!!
They can loose their license and therefore a bit fat wedge of profit if they do get caught selling to under age people. I doubt many 31 year olds look 17 so it does sound a little odd.

WillowTheWhisp 07-12-2007 11:36
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
She should have been chuffed that they thought she looked so young - but Neil she didn't have to look as young as 17, just 20. 'If you don't look 21 you will be asked to prove you are over 18' remember. :D

jambutty 07-12-2007 21:10
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by emamum23 (Post 500503)
"Secondly it relates to Poisons, where quite rightly the purchaser should establish his legitimate use before the sale is effected. I didn’t notice any age being mentioned and this topic is about the a person being refused the sale of alcohol because of age." (jambutty)

alcohol is poisonous, when given to the wrong person
So are peanuts and dozens of other foods.

jambutty 07-12-2007 21:21
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tealeaf (Post 501097)
We are not quite done yet, because a funny old thing happened last night. I had switched on the radio very late and just caught a few scattered words about a shooting in a shop and nine people dead.

"Bloody hell!" I thought "Jambutty has run berserk with a sawn-off shotgun in the Grimshaw Park Asda"

Luckily for the people of Blackburn it was not the case.
So you switched on the radio very late the other night and immediately thought of Asda being open. It depends on your definition of very late but most people wouldn’t consider 10:00pm to be very late and Asda would be shut by then.

What you have clearly established is that you are quite prepared to make a point based on a few scattered words half heard coming from the radio late at night. Much like many other contributors to this forum. But then why let reality and fact cloud the opportunity of having a dig.

lindsay ormerod 07-12-2007 21:40
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
If this helps.... a shopkeeper can withdraw an item from sale if it has the wrong price on it and simply refuse to sell it; it happened a lot in the music shops, folk were forever swapping price stickers about. If it's a genuine mistake you would honour it in the interests of customer service otherwise you are within your rights to withdraw it from sale.

emamum 07-12-2007 21:49
Re: A Law Unto Themselves?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambutty (Post 501501)
So you switched on the radio very late the other night and immediately thought of Asda being open. It depends on your definition of very late but most people wouldn’t consider 10:00pm to be very late and Asda would be shut by then.

What you have clearly established is that you are quite prepared to make a point based on a few scattered words half heard coming from the radio late at night. Much like many other contributors to this forum. But then why let reality and fact cloud the opportunity of having a dig.
ASDA is 24 hour exept 4 weekends.........


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:45.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
© 2003-2013 AccringtonWeb.com