Only requires linking from index below to specifics, but three documents are being loaded next four weeks.
The Final order, varying the terms of the hearing, and a critique of that order as being essentially fallacious, and flawed., submitted to the court. With a brief synopsis that will be placed before this index.
Index may be subject to revision due to items being re-arranged.
Table of, and exhibits. (last update 08/11/05 19:55) ii
Table of, and Statutory Instruments with bookmarks.(Full) v
Extracts of the same used in arguments. vi
Table of relevant Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). Vii
Late compelling evidence confirming the assessment of willful design, malfeasance, contempt of court, & consistent with bad faith..
Synopsis. The three essential points of focus. 2
Breach of performance on delivery, promise of next day before 12am, actual six days later.
Fallacious argument using the Privity Rule.
Unfair contract, with unfair terms.
The issues on either side. 3
Winter's order and delivery instructions, 23rd Sept 2004.. 4
Winter's email tracking system. 5
The supplier – Micro-Direct Ltd.
Amtrak's weak attempt at delivery, 24th September
Their previous history on delivery.
A comparison with Royal Mail.
The general behaviour of some delivery drivers.
Commencement of proceedings.
Performance on delivery and response to complaint.
Emails and telephone exchange.
Compensation by First defendant.
Dismissal of case against 1st defendant.
Mission statement by 2nd defendant, response to the claim.
The pre-action conduct of the litigant. CPR Rule4.2.(d).
Amtrak's defalcation of charges.
Amtrak's Contract 2003.
Amtraks Contract 2005.
Difference between the contracts
The two main clauses of contention.
Money Back Guarantee.
Breach of performance on delivery with money back guarantee dishonoured.
Limitation of Liability.
The clause being relied on in the defence, not contracted with consumers.
The defence of the claim.
Analysis of the claim.
The three main arguments identified in the document. (3. above)
The incoherence of the first argument.
What is perjury? Swearing truth of a belief one knows to be false.
The perjury of the first argument, from hindsight!
The fallacy of the second argument, from hindsight!
The unfair terms in the third argument.
The emerging perception of wilful design.
The resolve of the claimant.
The evidence so far.
The purchase order.
Promise from the carrier.
Reliance on that promise by the claimant.
The Claimant's allocation questionnaire.
The first hearing (undefended).
20 minutes exchange.
Outcome of the hearing and court order.
Allocation Questionnaire sent to defendant.
Allocation Questionnaire anticipated response.
Sight of the allocation questionnaire and confirmation of wilful design.
Re-examination of the filed Allocation Questionnaire with added purpose.
How the defendant wilfully managed the time window, an obstruction of justice.
How the defendant wilfully managed their contempt of court.
The claimant, having anticipated malfeasance, applies for a re-listing.
Hearing confirmed, claimant advises defendant by email.
Defendant responds with a story that confirms the contempt of court, recorded.
Claimant pursues this story requesting evidence, no replies.
Defendant's unavailability period, anticipated, is contrary to stated date.
Defendant's Solicitor and Managing Director calls claimant.
Essence of that exchange, and breach of undertaking to call back.
The second hearing (defended by Company Solicitor).
The defendant's attending is uncertain, why may that be?
The arrival of defendant with an application for the case to be dismissed.
The Judge's immediate reaction in support of that application.
The Claimant's response, concluding with the Privity Rule.
The application to dismiss the case is dismissed.
New hearing date set, for two and half hours.
Further research by the claimant.
Claimant makes a complaint to the local Trading Standards Office.
Claimant details this to the Consumer Association and Sunday Times.
Result of that exchange and further evidence added of previous complaint.
Claimant perceives a deeper relationship between defendant and their clients.
Claimant suggests contract terms are unfair, not upheld.
Claimant suggests the trading relationships distort competition law.
Claimant seeks first evidence to confirm this.
The third hearing (defended with additional council).
Claimant meets defendants, the exchange.
Defendant's intention to rely on the new law 1999, the weaker for defence.
The four parties enter the court.
The opening declaration from the Judge.
The case will be conducted without reference to the substantial evidence.
Defendant speaks first, claimant found this unusual, but did not mind.
The claimant gives a synopsis of the past year.
Judge examines particulars of first claim, asks questions and determines case.
Judge concludes that while laudable, the claimant, having accepted settlement
in part, leaving the court costs, from which he was exempt, did not suffer damage?
Claimant states this will be a bad day for justice, if a culprit goes free,
having served detriment to four parties.
Claimant traverses briefly the nature of the malfeasances, nonfeasance,obstruction of justice, perjurous statements, and contempt of court.
The question of amendment to claim, and pursuit of tortious liability discussed.
The surprise defendant's request for a restraining order.
The compromise on that, with the claimant's distinct perception of its slur.
The defendants request for costs, in the amount of £1178 or therabouts.
The Judges final comments on that.
Conclusions (from 3. The three essential points of focus).
Inflexible outcome at present, who is tortfeasor? Who are damaged parties? Is justice yet served?
Combination of application of rules, with arguments that make little impression, reveals design and purpose.
Parties to a potential dispute should follow a reasonable procedure, suitable to their particular circumstances, which is intended to avoid litigation. The procedure should not be regarded as a prelude to inevitable litigation. It should normally include –
the claimant writing to give details of the claim;
the defendant acknowledging the claim letter promptly;
the defendant giving within a reasonable time a detailed written response; and
the parties conducting genuine and reasonable negotiations with a view to settling the claim economically and without court proceedings.