Tesco shares / fraudulent reporting.

[righty]

Re: Tesco shares / fraudulent reporting.

Snail and Lemonade Bottle.... Waitrose can't be held to account for a sealed can it can't inspect the contents of practicably.
My grandad always loved that piece of law, he said it epitomised the elegance of our legal system

Oh yes they can. The seller is responsible for the goods they sell and its they who have a contract with the consumer. The store could sue the supplier but that doesn't often happen

[righty]

Re: Tesco shares / fraudulent reporting.

Their duty to supply goods that are fit for purpose is absolute

[righty]

Re: Tesco shares / fraudulent reporting.

Their duty to supply goods that are fit for purpose is absolute

[Mineral1]

Re: Tesco shares / fraudulent reporting.

For the specific example proffered I beg to differ. A child dies from a shard of glass in a can of Heinz Beans. Immediately involved would be the local council, the food standards agency, also the police. Immediately they could establish Waitrose not culpable (assuming the Heinz Beans can was in good condition, sealed and within sell by date. The inquiry would focus on Heinz production process as the contamination would have occurred in-process, and legal action taken directly against the company. Unless Heinz could find a really good reason they would be convicted for breaches of safety etc etc. Heinz would have no leg to stand on against any civil claim and so simply going off and suing Waitrose would not occur. Waitrose might appear on any civil claim, but as in Donoghue v Stevenson where Minghella was initially on the original claim it is unlikely that would persist. It's interesting in Donoghue v Stevenson that no contract was alleged to exist between the two parties (on account of her friend actually paying for the lemonade) however, as the lemonade was in fact split into drinks for both women and they were acting together this is too narrow an interpretation of a contract (otherwise a group turn up to by a book of tickets to see a film and only one hands over a bank note to pay for all = one one contract) or another way of looking at it Donoghues friend bought a bottle of lemonade for herself and only got half? Sorry I know its Boxing Day...:santa2:

[righty]

Re: Tesco shares / fraudulent reporting.

Consumers sue retailers all the time for supplying goods not fit for purpose AND that includes goods that don't appear to be faulty

Suggest you Google 'Stark v Post Office'

[righty]

Re: Tesco shares / fraudulent reporting.

Consumers sue retailers all the time for supplying goods not fit for purpose AND that includes goods that don't appear to be faulty

Suggest you look up Stark v Post Office and for good measure the original case that established the duty/liability 'Gallashiels Gas Company'

[Mineral1]

Re: Tesco shares / fraudulent reporting.

Consumers sue retailers all the time for supplying goods not fit for purpose AND that includes goods that don't appear to be faulty

Suggest you look up Stark v Post Office and for good measure the original case that established the duty/liability 'Gallashiels Gas Company'

Not relevant the case law is in reference to a specific interpretation of an employers liability in maintaining and servicing equipment to prevent injury to employees, the Judges appeared to be stretching the definition of 'maintained' if you ask me... Thats well beyond contra proferentem...

[righty]

Re: Tesco shares / fraudulent reporting.

Being maintained is an absolute duty. Otherwise who do you blame and/or compensate if not the victim. Its for this reason that the judges took the view they did Also another judge in a consumer PI matter stated that what was good for the employee must also be good for the ordinary consumer. I think it was a matter involving Tesco

[Mr $quanda£ot]

Re: Tesco shares / fraudulent reporting.

Well, let's wait and see the outcome of this case, shall we? It will be an interesting case whichever way it goes!

[sean5302]

Re: Tesco shares / fraudulent reporting.

Well, we had our first hearing today.
On my side there was me.
On the other side were 2 people who'd travelled up from London to represent Tesco. There was also a woman from Halifax Sharedealing. All seemed to be solicitors.
Tesco's people, Freshfields, were vehemently trying every trick to get my claim struck out. They failed.
I'm not going to reveal everything as I'll have to return to this action once the SFO has ruled as to whether fraud was committed.
My claim is stayed until then. The alternative would have been multi-track in the High Court. Megabucks.
They had to pay my costs today, as they failed to get my claim struck out.
If / when the SFO rules or when the large actions being contemplated by Slater & Gordon (amongst others) come alive, I reckon I'll get an easy win.
Thanks to the Forum for your help so far.

[wales01man]

Re: Tesco shares / fraudulent reporting.

Well done hope it goes all the way for you to win I like many others doubted you could get a result lets hope we are wrong

[sean5302]

Re: Tesco shares / fraudulent reporting.

Thanks very much mate.
They were desperate to get the claim struck out. Much more so than I've ever come across before in 40 years of occasional county court claims every year or two.
They were miffed as the London pair had spent last night in a hotel and had travelled up by train, at £200 each, each way.
The cost of their strike-out application was £155 so they were throwing money at this in the hope of succeeding.
Anyone would think floodgates are creaking.
Very grateful for your support.

[sean5302]

Re: Tesco shares / fraudulent reporting.

Game on again today.
Apologies for my absence for the past few years. I can be a cantankerous old gimmer sometimes.
My reason for return is that Tesco appears to have reached agreement with the SFO to pay £129 million as a fine, plus another £85 million to shareholders ie 24.5p per share, plus interest, but only to folks buying between 29 Aug 2014 and 19 Sept 2014. I bought before this.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...unting-scandal

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...be-accounting/

So, I've emailed Tesco's solicitors, asking where they want to go next.

Can anyone advise me as to the cost to re-open my stayed claim?
I actually crystallised my loss at just over £3,000 when I sold the Shares (thankfully at a much higher price than today's valuation), so I'm still battling.
Tesco seems to admit that we all suffered a 17% loss due to their fraud. That was the fall in the share price immediately on their admission. They then said the true fraud wasn't £263 million, but was actually £326 million.

I'm hoping Tesco's solicitors make me an offer, but somehow I doubt it.

I can't find the cost of the fee for opening a stayed Small Claims Track claim. Any helpers, please?

[R0b]

Re: Tesco shares / fraudulent reporting.

Game on again today.
Apologies for my absence for the past few years. I can be a cantankerous old gimmer sometimes.
My reason for return is that Tesco appears to have reached agreement with the SFO to pay £129 million as a fine, plus another £85 million to shareholders ie 24.5p per share, plus interest, but only to folks buying between 29 Aug 2014 and 19 Sept 2014. I bought before this.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...unting-scandal

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...be-accounting/

So, I've emailed Tesco's solicitors, asking where they want to go next.

Can anyone advise me as to the cost to re-open my stayed claim?
I actually crystallised my loss at just over £3,000 when I sold the Shares (thankfully at a much higher price than today's valuation), so I'm still battling.
Tesco seems to admit that we all suffered a 17% loss due to their fraud. That was the fall in the share price immediately on their admission. They then said the true fraud wasn't £263 million, but was actually £326 million.

I'm hoping Tesco's solicitors make me an offer, but somehow I doubt it.

I can't find the cost of the fee for opening a stayed Small Claims Track claim. Any helpers, please?

If you want to lift the stay it would be £255 fee for an N244 application though you might get away with paying £155 if you do it without notice.

May ask what evidence you have to date on proving that Tesco had overstated their profits at the time you purchase and not as a result of any other factors? The FRC I believe looked into PWC's audits of Tesco over the previous 3 years but I am not aware of any outcome report about it. Although being a civil claim which requires a more likely than not probability, proving fraud is still fraught with difficulties unless you have sufficient evidence to prove there was something there.

[sean5302]

Re: Tesco shares / fraudulent reporting.

The evidence of the overstatement was admitted by Dave Lewis and the correct profit statement was submitted on 22 Sept 2014.
The incorrect statement had been filed on 19 August 2014.
http://metro.co.uk/2017/03/28/tesco-...ation-6538052/
Before I purchased the shares I carefully examined Tesco's published profit data.
Share prices can rise or fall, but there has to be an assessment based on honest data, and Tesco's wasn't, which is why they're paying £129 million fine plus £85 million to some shareholders.
I don't believe that the figures published on 19 August 2014 were the first false ones. 3 Directors are currently on bail, facing criminal charges for fraud.
My current difficulty is that my claim was stayed pending a High Court ruling on their liability under Schedule 10a of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. To date, that hasn't happened.
What if I were just to issue a new claim along similar lines? Would that be an abuse of process?