Friday, 5 July 2013

Spammers 0:1 RevK, again?

Huxley said they were settling, and even wrote to the court to say so.

No money arrived.

Now they are saying that they need me to sign a 3 page settlement agreement which includes an agreement to remove items from my blog and not post about this or the settlement agreement.

They seem to think that my blog "infers[sic] that we have accepted liability". Given that I posted their letter which clearly states that they were settling on a without prejudice commercial basis, I can hardly see how my blog could imply that they accepted liability. It would have been nice if they had taken responsibility for their actions, but that was clearly not the case.

They think they can buy my silence by paying me the £30 that they had already agreed to pay. They also think they can get me to agree to remove things from any other website, public platform, or portal - as if I had the power to do that!

I have not agreed to the agreement to keep the agreement quiet!

So, lets see them in court! I am looking forward to it.


11 comments:

  1. Just out of interest, how many places does your blog get syndicated to?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No idea. But I know that once something is posted on the Internet it can and will be copied and that will be out of my control.

      Delete
  2. I'm no lawyer, but surely by telling the court that they will pay, and subsequently refusing to do so, they are now in contempt?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not only that, but they appear to have misinformed the court by saying that an agreement had been reached when this is clearly not the case.

      Delete
  3. You said that the solicitors have said that they have sent the £30 by BACS. Did that mean that the solicitors themselves had sent the money (in which case it would seem that they were lying to you) or did it mean that the solicitors had been informed by their client that the client had sent the money (in which case it would seem that the client had lied to their solicitor)?

    Very strange.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bump up the bill to cover your extra costs involved in handling their letters!

    ReplyDelete
  5. As I understand it (check with a lawyer before relying on this), by agreeing to settle, they've turned the damages you're claiming into a debt; this means that the court doesn't need to look at the merits of your case, but just at their agreement to settle, and their failure to do so.

    If they wanted to impose terms like they're trying to do now, they needed to do that as part of the offer to settle, not after they've agreed a settlement.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why is the "[sic]" after "infers" and why is that quote a problem anyway? I'd tend to agree with them - anybody reading the blog would be very likely to infer that they had accepted liability. OK, I know that in the strictest legal sense they haven't, but...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They said my blog infers. It would imply and the reader of the blog would infer, surely. And really? the blog post said they had "settled" and actually posted the letter where they state quite clearly the basis on which they settled.

      Delete
    2. Yes, the blog would imply and the reader infer.

      If one assumes that the author did mean 'infers', then the sentence
      "[the blog] infers that we have accepted liability"
      can therefore only mean
      "[the blog] infers [within the mind of the reader] that we have accepted liability".

      Delete