I was buying new so yes that =A31000 would have fallen off the value the= moment I put the key in the lock and opened the door. But that applies to all new cars, some drop *a lot* more a grand at that point.
The price of what I was buying was reasonable, I could probably have haggled another few hundred quid off it but I very much doubt a =A31000.=
Where do all the clever people shop?
You're not really entering into the spirit of this, are you? ;)
Mary's either on a different spiritual plane, incredibly narrow minded, or deliberately trying to get a reaction (that's my option, going by her tale of trying to get a reaction from her husband when she quite clearly appeared fit and healthy after a little bump parking), but whatever the case, it's been quite fun :)
Although I'll be bowing out soon, before it gets too stale and pointless.
Evidently not! I could have responded with a reasoned argument, but to be quite honest I'm bored with this thread now, and have got better things to do. Well, I'm bored with this thread anyway.
It appears to annoy you, which is just an unexpected bonus.
On Fri, 20 May 2005 21:43:47 GMT and in uk.rec.cars.misc, Adrian wrote....
No point in metioning the discretionary form you can get i suppose.
None taken. Dialysis is performed 3 times a week for 6 hours each time. It removes toxins and fluid from your blood. Due to this constant flucuation of body weight and fluid levels i suffer from high and low blood pressure, dependant on when dialysis takes place. This causes dizzy spells, blackouts, muscle fatigue and loss of breath. The hardest part is actually getting anyone to believe you are on dialysis when you are having a good day.
They are needy? they need food.
Almost without exception?
And without exception I have seen these "disabled " people climb easily out of their top of the range luxury cars and stoll into the shops. Does that mean all blue badge holders are like that? How, apart from keeping children locked away, are parents supposed to prevent any interaction between their children and the public?
It shows.
If they're happy with what they're buying, and they've be honestly told exactly what it is they're getting, then where's the problem? No-one's forced at gunpoint to buy anything - if they choose to buy a 10-15 year old car, knowing exactly what it is and what small faults it has, then that's their choice. As it is their choice as to exactly what they pay for it - if they can't buy it at a price that's acceptable to them, then they won't buy it. Simple really.
Why not? If you damaged someone else's property, then it's only fair that you pay for that damage.
Then he's been compensated for the fact that his car is still damaged, and hence worth slightly less.
Conor wrote on Fri, 20 May 2005 23:00:53 +0100:
Given the assertion in the post he's replying to, Andy is completely right.
That's your interpretation of what I wrote. It wasn't my intention, it wasn't the case. I can't force my husband - or anyone else - to have feelings which don't come naturally. I wouldn't want to either.
He doesn't have the car any more, he still has me :-)
Mary
And property can be important and indeed essential. To say all property is not important is a bit stupid and shows shallow thinking.
Don't be silly, it is not fraud or extortion at all.
That is, indeed, a possibility! Just gone back and read that someone had
*claimed* that you inflicted this damage. I suppose it's fair to assume that that implies that you didn't actually cause the damage - my apologies."Go Bollock to the dogs. I'll none of it."
Yes, true - read below.
Unless it was something particularly rare or desirable, then the chances are you probably could have done. And judging by the fact that the dealer was offering a "guaranteed grand" for trading in any old shed, I'd wager that it wasn't anything particularly rare or desirable.
joe parkin ( snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :
Same place as everybody else. We're just massively outnumbered. Like the well-behaved children.
Andy Turner ( snipped-for-privacy@nospam.demon.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :
So when they say "parent and child", they don't really mean "parent and child"?
So?
Care to explain that how taking money to have something repaired but not having said repair done is not fraud? Or if the money is obtained via a threat "Pay for that ding or a kick your car door in..." extortion.
I seem to remember that's exactly what happened. The idea being to provide a nourishing meal rather than the junk I would no doubt have chosen, given the preference.
My sister in law's child will eat anything, provided it's chicken nuggets or crisps. Now how do you think that happened? Seriously, she will eat nothing else.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required