Friday, 5 July 2013

Digging a hole for themselves

Huxley are now telling the court that they did indeed offer to settle, but by mistake they forgot to say that their offer was "Subject to Agreement", and that they since tried to rectify that mistake.

So they have now stated to the court that an agreement was reached and now stated to the court that they did indeed make that agreement without reservation, albeit claiming they made a mistake in doing so. The letter to the court saying agreement had been reached must have been another mistake as well.

Their letter makes the facts clear - they offered to settle and I accepted. So I have now asked the court to change my claim to one for breach of contract whereby they have simply not paid the £30 they agreed to pay, and the letters to the court are my evidence of their unconditional offer and their agreement (telling the court we had reached agreement).

This will be a way simpler case to win - show the judge the letter where they offered, my reply accepting, (contract formed) their letter telling the court we agreed (proof they got my acceptance), and bingo.

Actually, thinking about it, even their claimed mistake does not change things. If their offer included "Subject to agreement", the fact they then wrote to the court saying an agreement had been reached means, well, that agreement had been reached and so the "subject to" is satisfied.

What fun.

15 comments:

  1. "Reached an agreement subject to agreement". Fantastic. You couldn't make it up. Good on you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Is this letter signed by a different person? Previous ones stated "Trainee solicitor" who presumably made the mistake. Are they also learning a lesson about the consequences of leaving a trainee to send deal with legal matters without adequate supervision.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Are you charging from training their trainee?

    Can't help feeling a little sorry for them, not sure they teach pure revK logic at law school.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Just worked out what the preview button is for, I ment to say Charging For not from :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. It'll be interesting to make an court request for evidence that they wanted it "Subject to agreement" *before* they submitted it to the court (I suspect they found out about your blog after the notification and are now trying to back track - after all it's not like SThree has ever been accused or charged with being spammers before - http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/sydney-businesses-failed-to-comply-with-spam-act-i-acma , http://www.recruitmentreviews.com/companyreview.aspx?employerid=181 et al)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Given that the settlement agreement references my blog specifically I think that is pretty certain...

      Delete
    2. So the agreement couldn't have been written before they sent the "settlement" (as it references your blog post made after you received it) so it was therefore impossible (apart from with time travel) for them to say the settlement was subject to an agreement they couldn't have written. Have they committed perjury?

      Delete
  6. Am I right in thinking that the small claims court won't allow you to increase your claim to cover the time-cost of dealing with this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If we get one of these cases to court, I intend to ask advice of the judge as to what "damages" I can claim. I can't see how it would be equitable for all of the "work" caused by the breach of the regulations to not be covered, but I have a feeling you may be right. If it is just the work involved in preparing the court case though, one can see how "sending a written notice before action" and other work might be allowed... I'd love to know.

      Delete
    2. I vaguely recall that you may be able to claim "damages" if you were financially impacted by having to pay a professional to do something for you, but I don't think you can charge for your own time (e.g. if a builder causes damage to your property and you have to pay another builder to put it right then you can claim that, but if you choose to put it right yourself then you can only claim for the materials, not your time... which is completely bonkers if you ask me).

      Of course, I may be completely wrong, IANAL :)

      If you have to go appear in court, then obviously that has quite a significant time cost (and one that they are hoping you will decide is not to be worth it for the £30).

      Delete
    3. It is only in Reading and not a big issue to go to court if I learn something from it (win or lose). Asking the judge how I decide what my "damages" are will be worth it. I was under the impression that things like "distress" can give rise to damages too.

      Delete
  7. Can you not ask for "Costs" to be awarded? If you employed a lawyer to handle the case then their fee would be costs. If not, your own expenses ought to be counted, I'd have thought. But IANAL!

    Cheers, Howard

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's good to see that they can't even spell their own address on their headed paper either :)

    ReplyDelete