WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

[EXC]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

Is anyone else (as in other than the "main man") from LB attending?

Celestine & Tom Brennan are planning on attending the afternoon session.

[ncf355]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

Can't make up my mind which bank I'd prefer that to be..... There are too many who deserve the pain. :tinysmile_hmm_t2:

ROFL!

Yes, with you on that one

[ncf355]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

Celestine & Tom Brennan are planning on attending the afternoon session.

Thats good to hear, should be able to get a decent commentary tmw evening then

[Amethyst]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

PT's judgment and associated posts on misrep purchases and sec 75 has been put on its own thread xx

[Doc2527]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

Amethyst

What's it called?

Doc

[Amethyst]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...nt-Paul-Tilley

Link would have helped really, sorry xx

[Doc2527]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

Many thanks Amethyst

[ncf355]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

Roll on tomorrow!

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

Good luck Richard! I've booked the day off and will be watching.

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

Good luck Richard! I've booked the day off and will be watching.

Ditto.......only can't watch haven't got Sky
Sparkie

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

I consider myself to be a simple logical person…and the way I see it is …..even it is decided there were two contracts…………one would have to be a debtor -supplier agreement…..the other a creditor debtor agreement. When Richard returned the laptop to PC world and got his deposit back that agreement would have been terminated.


That left the creditor-debtor agreement……however because HFC paid PC World which I imagine contained an element of undisclosed commission as well.


Richard received no benefit from either agreement …….even if there were two agreements.


What he got was He has suffered from the abuse and damage all this caused him …he had no money …no goods no benefit ……only hassle……. He owes no money because he never had any in the first place. It’s PC world that owes HFC the money back
Or …Am I being stupid as usual?
Normally my logic is only considered useful in the Twighlight Zone
Sparkie

[ncf355]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

Sure makes sense in our world too Sparks!

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

Sure makes sense in our world too Sparks!

You must be travelling pretty close and paralell with my twighlight zone ncf be carefull you don't stray over the line ...its a bit dodgy over here
Sparkie

[Amethyst]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

Thoughts be with you tomorrow Richard.

[MIKE770]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

Fingers X!d for you Richard for to-morrow!