Contract Law - I need legal advice.... (1 Viewer)

[Demandred]

Ok, I work at a newsagent, one day, there was a promotion with every newspaper, a woman comes in, buys newspaper, she didn't ask for the promotion and I was forgot to tell her about it. Than a few minutes later, a person claims to be her husband came and said he wanted a promotion, I didn't know whether the paper was bought from here or not, so I asked for a coupon from paper anyway, he didn't have it on with him. He went to the car park, came back with the coupon and I gave the the promotion to him.

He (not the lawyer) sent me a letter, threatening to sue me unless I pay $2500 in damages.

He also said, that a few weeks earlier, he mother (elderly probably, I dont remember) came in, there were a lot of people in line. He acknowledged thats he pushed in, but said we were abusive in notifying her the fact that there is a line and you can't push.

How low people can go. So any pointers? contract law students?

Cheers

 

[MaryJane]

...Is this legit?! Or some crazy UWS law question?

 

[Demandred]

Yes, it happened in real life. It's crazy I know.

 

[Frigid]

Ok, I work at a newsagent, one day, there was a promotion with every newspaper, a woman comes in, buys newspaper, she didn't ask for the promotion and I was forgot to tell her about it. Than a few minutes later, a person claims to be her husband came and said he wanted a promotion, I didn't know whether the paper was bought from here or not, so I asked for a coupon from paper anyway, he didn't have it on with him. He went to the car park, came back with the coupon and I gave the the promotion to him.

He (not the lawyer) sent me a letter, threatening to sue me unless I pay $2500 in damages.

can i answer this on the weekend with my newbie contrax 1 knowledge? i wanna go to sleep now, but somehow i think he's not gonna succeed on many grounds...

lack of agreement, lack of consideration, lack of intention, doctrine of privity, illusory promise and all that jazz... *falls asleep*

edit: oh and if you could, please outline the circumstances in more detail (like the nature of the promotion etc), whether you own the newsagent, ummmm, what the threatening letter said....

 

[Demandred]

Promotion was a packet of NRL cards if I remember right, with every paper you get a packet. Your talking about vicarious liability? Yes, I am willing to take responsibility for all of - family business. In terms of beeing polite and kind to everyone, those who work at the counters would know its almost impossible to be constantly friendly. But our employees are top notch (kind grandma type), 'good mourning', 'please' and 'thank you' are mandantory and most of time we give a lot more. We have been finalists for best small businesses in the region for the last couple of years, winning twice.

 

[hfis]

Promotion was a packet of NRL cards if I remember right, with every paper you get a packet.

This, coupled with 'being rude'? $2500?

Hahaha, let him try and sue you. You will have fun, I'm sure. I have absolutely no experience in the area of contract law at the moment, but I'm pretty sure this is one of those situations which Kerrigan's 'law of common bloody sense' applies.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

1. Is the newsagency a part of a franchise?

2. Did the coupon state "present this coupon to receive a free pack of cards" on it?

3. Did the newsagency have any other advertising about the deal, and if so what did it say?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I can tell you straight away, based on what you've said, that there is no case for supposedly being rude. Forget that.

To deal with the contracts question (which actually, if the guy had any knowledge, is also a Trade Practices Act issue), some information on what the newsagency advertised about the deal is needed.

Also, did this man's letter say what the damages he demanded were for (eg. $2500 damages for breach of contract; assault, etc), or did he just ask for "$2500 damages"?

 

[Demandred]

Nope, it isn't a franchise, small family business. Yep, it did say that. It wasn't really run by the newsagency, it was run the newspaper company (SMH or Tele, I forgot), basically we're suppose to give a pack of NRL cards with every purchase of newspaper, given that we had plenty of these promotions, generally we either just give it to them, or ask if they needed one (if it's short supply, most of the time it is), but in this case, I simply forgot and she forgot to ask. If someone forgets to take one and comes back, we would'd happily give it to them provided they show us proof of purchase.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Nope, it isn't a franchise, small family business. Yep, it did say that. It wasn't really run by the newsagency, it was run the newspaper company (SMH or Tele, I forgot), basically we're suppose to give a pack of NRL cards with every purchase of newspaper, given that we had plenty of these promotions, generally we either just give it to them, or ask if they needed one (if it's short supply, most of the time it is), but in this case, I simply forgot and she forgot to ask. If someone forgets to take one and comes back, we would'd happily give it to them provided they show us proof of purchase.

Okay

What I really need to know is, did the coupon state "present this coupon to receive a free pack of cards" on it?

 

[Demandred]

Yes, it said that.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

In that case, you have nothing to worry about.

(There are really only two things he could possibly sue for:

1. Breach of contract. Since it is a term of the contract that the other party presents a coupon, you would only be ever guilty of breaching it if when he finally presented the coupon, you refused. And that's still a long shot.

2. Misleading and deceptive conduct under Trade Practices Act legislation. Nothing you have done was misleading or deceptive, since you have the pack of cards as advertised that you would, with the presentation of the coupon.)


My advice to you is to either

(a) ignore the letter; or
(b) respond to the letter with the following:

Dear Sir,

This letter is written in response to your request for $2500 in damages.

I have been advised informally by number of law students that you have no legitimate claim against myself, or my family's newsagency. I ask that you please cease any further related communication on this matter.

Yours Sincerely,

[your name]

Personally I would respond with the above letter, but you don't have to respond at all.

--

Disclaimer: I am very confident with all the advice that I have given to you (contract law is my specialty), but I must state that I am not a qualified lawyer and you are relying on my advice at your own risk. (I'm a law student, you can expect I would protect myself!)

 

[Demandred]

Thanks alot MS .

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to MoonlightSonata again

Find me in the bar 15 years from now and I'll give you a shout.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Thanks alot MS .

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to MoonlightSonata again

Find me in the bar 15 years from now and I'll give you a shout.

Oh I'll be at the bar alright

(Btw, even if for some CRAZY reason the guy suceeded for breach of contract, he'd get as damages whatever the cost was of the pack of cards. I'm guessing about $10! Judges wouldn't even make you pay his court costs probably, seeing as it was a frivolous litigation).

 

[Newbie]

what a vexatious wanker

ask him for the cards back haha

 

[Lazarus]

Uhm, I don't get it.

This was my reading of your facts:

1. Wife enters and buys paper.
2. Wife leaves without promotion.
3. A few minutes pass.
4. Husband enters and asks for promotion.
5. Cashier requests a coupon from husband.
6. Husband leaves without promotion.
7. A few minutes pass.
8. Husband enters with coupon.
9. Husband leaves with promotion.

The whole transaction occurred in a matter of minutes.

You ended up giving him the cards. He hasn't even suffered any losses.

How could he possibly bring any action against you?

I'd recommend you throw that letter in the trash (or keep it for a good laugh) and just get on with your life. It's hardly worth dignifying it with a response.

 

[Frigid]

demandred, scan us the letter for a laugh

 

[MoonlightSonata]

It was probably this guy

 

[Demandred]

Yep, that's what happened Laz. I don't think I should scan the letter.

I recieved another letter asking for damages for defamation because we simply didn't believe him. He said one of our staff humiliated her mother. I don't believe him. He said we left him humiliated because he thought I didn't believe him when he said his wife came into the store.

How the hell I suppose to know that was his wife? Yes, am I suppose to believe everything people say? That staff has a good 10+ expierience behind her, ever since she moved to our newsagency, she's being attracting a lot of business because everybody likes her. Even if something did happen, are you going to sue simply because someone said told you get back to line in harshly? Fuck I better start litigating against my school teachers.

Sounds like his out for money, I can see numerous spelling and grammar mistakes as well.

 

[Frigid]

LOL, demandred, tell him to serve you his statement of claim

However, such legislation can only be enforced through the courts where, if justice were to prevail, bad laws would be vetoed and rejected in fair trials or tribunals.

ummm, no court but the HCA can veto law, and only on the ground of (explicit or implied) unconstitutionality.

That is why the banks have to have dominance over the courts. They do this by firstly controlling the judges and secondly eliminating juries - thereby removing any possibility that the judges may "do right" or that the people may exercise their will.

wtf? when were there ever juries for civil claims?

The judges know this and are concealing this serious offence. This website exposes the incompetence, corruption and treachery in the judiciary.

CONTEMPT OF COURT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >.<

Magna Carta says, "To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay, Right or Justice.". Unless the banks can be defeated, such noble principles are gone and the people, having no rights, are merely slaves.

actually dear, at present, banking is a Commonwealth power and not a state one. the application of the Magna Carta is limited, in NSW, by the Imperial Acts Application Act 1969. therefore the Magna Carta is not binding on Commonwealth laws.

Tuesday, June 21, 105 ..... 6:52 PM

you got Y2Ked.