On the parlous state of reasoning and judgment to be found in state managed organs for complaints and the British Courts of Justice

Winter V Amtrak Express Parcels Ltd (Amtrak lost £1200 to defend £8) No doubt due to floodgate potential. They average about 5% failure rate on figures gained by this claimant. A considerable sum of money gained illegally in breach of their contract.

In 2005, I was the claimant in a case against Amtrak Express Parcel Services Ltd.

How the privity rule was used, (by simple obversion) when the defendant said I could not claim under it.


The short synopsis is detailed in the index below.

This page Amtrak

Click link below for Wedgwood/UPS.

New and coming, HERE... dispute with Wedgwood & UPS (their Couriers U.P.S.) in
semantic spin gibberish where 'parcels experience exceptions,' (yes parcels now have senses!) and Royal mail, saying 'sorry you were out,' while virtually handing you the card that says so. Amusing stupidity from templates and rebuttable presumptions that are utterly ridiculous in their utterances.

Amtrak Express Parcels Ltd case below

  1. I purchased computer goods from Micro-Direct, ordering them on a Thursday to be delivered overnight by Friday 12 AM.

      • I paid of course extra for the privilege, a total of £15 and some pence, whereas the normal tariff was about £6.00.

  2. This was a contract initially under the sale of goods act 1979, and as amended.

      • There was a written contract between the carriers Amtrak, and Micro-Direct, which stated that if the goods were not delivered on time, or within a reasonable boundary of an excess period, like the next timed delivery that day, then a MONEY BACK GUARANTEE was in place to remedy the breach.

  3. Next day at about 9 am, Amtrak came to the front entrance of the block of flats, and left a card loosely placed between the glass of the door and its surround, saying they had visited, and on receiving the card, the recipient should call.

      • This was the second occurrence of such a delivery, where a card was left, no doorbell was rung, I was at home, being disabled, (getting out very rarely in the week).

      • The disappointment was serious as I had been looking out for the driver from 8.30 that morning, and had missed him. My telephone number was on the goods, with instructions that any problems on delivery, the driver should call, and he would find me in residence. This was not followed, their telephone records may be relied on to show truth.

  4. I called the depot, within 20 minutes of seeing the card, asked if they would see if the driver was still in the vicinity, and they then a undertook to re-deliver that afternoon, before 4pm. I was sceptical.

      • Several phone calls, faxes and emails saw the end of day without the goods, the next time window had been breached, I was entitled to a full or partial refund, plain and simple.

  5. Saturday came and went, Sunday I emailed both supplier and carrier, saying if the goods were not delivered by midnight Monday they would be cancelled. Monday came and went, I cancelled the goods overnight, and notified both parties.

  6. On Tuesday I booked appointments to inspect and collect the goods locally, on Wednesday afternoon. On Wednesday morning about 12am, the original cancelled goods arrived, taken in by my wife. I notified the seller, I was holding the goods, unopened until we had sorted out not merely the refund, but some compensation for avoidable time and trouble plus the extreme vexation and detriment I had received. After a while the seller agreed to compensate me, they refunded the £15, and compensated mean additional sum of about £70 to retain the goods. This left a shortfall of £30 in Court costs, for the issue of the claim, that I stated I would seek from Amtrak.

  7. One would think that was all sorted out, and why on earth should I not be contented. Being disabled I was exempted from court costs, the taxpayer had paid that for me, and the seller the remainder. I wanted Justice for the seller and the tax payer. A foolish focus, to make the culprit accountable, and seek a remedy that did not mean others bailing me out.

      • I was NOT happy at all, on grounds that I was informed the seller had as a matter of goodwill, compensated me, and when they approached the carriers who had behaved not with mere simple negligence, but wilful negligence, and remarkable prejudice ignoring a series of representations, the carrier's were adamant in refusal to compensate the seller under their own contract.

      • There was an inherent injustice, want of equity, unfairness, and abrogation of all liability under a contract by a villainous company bent on defending their £15 to the limit.

  8. I spoke to Amtrak's company secretary and solicitor (same person) who confirmed they had not met the seller on any part of the their loss, and told me that I could not claim from them under the 'privity rule'.

    I asked them to settle part or all of the £15 with their customer, the seller, they refused, and I said I would proceed to collect the £30 court costs, as if I had paid them, and give them back to the taxpayer though the courts.

  9. What vexed me was the total arrogance and stubbornness of the culprit , and their failure to hold themselves accountable under their own contract. The argument under th privity rule was unknown to me at that time, but instinctively I felt the law should see the injustice that was clear to all others except the carrier.. Their own contract under the law had been breached, they disowned all responsibility despite being unquestionably culpable in a next day delivery being 6 days late. I took the view the privity rule was a mere impediment, a just and fair settlement had to be sought, at any cost, as a matter of principle. The asymmetry of information being their solicitor knowing more about the privity rule than myself at that moment was something I would rectify if the claim went forward, on mere research into the origins and basis of their argument.

  10. I proceeded to seek a remedy of the principle of total unequivocal injustice. The defendant (carriers) deposed a defence, that was immediately fallacious. Indeed ts construction was not that the fallacy was a simple error of reasoning, but a syllogistic construction with an inherent non-sequitur. It laid out the breach as if they had actually delivered the very next day. This was sworn for truth, and the first perjurous statement of several in writing, over the year long exchange.

  11. Apologetically, I was not prepared to tolerate this, and resolved to pursue the remedy to the limit. My thoroughness over that year built some 500 pages of exchanges, emails, critiques of a number of additional perjuries, and wilful breaches of undertakings with the court itself, in the thwarting of civil procedure rules, to extend the time, and attempt to throw me off.

  12. The first hearing, (undefended) was exemplary, professional and reasonable. Her Honour the judge advised the defendant had a strong argument under th privity rule, and the contract itself was going to be a serious hurdle. I thought about it for 24 hours, and advised the court I wished to press on for a second hearing. I set about clarifying the privity rule, verified they had still not settled the breach towards the seller, and remained adamantine.

  13. I simply looked up the privity rule, discovered it had arisen in 1861, and that reforms under the Contracts of third parties act 1999, gave several approaches to a remedy, providing exceptions for the privity rule, where the third party could be held responsible if the argument was sustained that the relationship was either one of Agency or the contract was Collateral in nature. Both looked promising and I prepared argument covering them. Next I went on to examine, with greater purpose the privity rule itself, to discover that this rule, that had govern lawyers problems for over one hundred years had the simplest method of avoidance based on the doctrine of consideration. You will need to look a the rule, its first main case, and apply simple logic to the converse of the case, and the defence by the defendant was eliminated in one stroke. At the second hearing, after seeing the defendant and Judge were both of like minds, and that I was pressing on for an expensive case that should be dismissed, the Judge listened to my argument. It took about three minutes, and I concluded it made the claim enforceable. He was uncertain, asked us to leave the court and seek a settlement during a period of ten minutes. There was little chance of this, the defendant was still not prepared to give ground, or even talk with me.

  14. On re-entering the court, the Judge stated that my argument was correct, and the claim was enforcible, we were given a future hearing of two and half hours. This was more than satisfactory but perceptibly precarious, yet perfectly correct, despite an initial, but easily remedied attitude concerning the principle at cause.

  15. I had considered the defendant would possibly take a commercial decision to settle, but not guessed their reasons for being so adamant in denial, until I considered the notion that if they conceded to me, (having told me they had never settled such claims themselves) they would open themselves to a class action from similar claimants running to several hundred claims a month.

  16. The third hearing was satisfactory in part, in returning a detriment where I has been served with one, and hearing the Judge concluded with high praise for my own delivery and deplorable opportunism from the defendant, and her barrister. the grave disappointment flowed several weeks later, after a few exchanges with the court, in the judges written order that stood so far in contradistinction with the terms of the hearing, that I was compelled to analyse and consequently criticise the final order as being fallacious in several of its methodologies, and show clearly that my contrary judgment , was cogently true. The fallacies were

      • Hasty generalisation,

      • Biased sample, (agenda),

      • insufficient sample, and without surgical precision in linguistics.

  17. This critique was sent to the Judges clerk for filing along with the tapes, and other post hearing exchanges.

  18. Click HERE to go to the many exhibits and documents, and peruse a little further for the overturning of the privity rule.


To be continued just a few paragraphs.

The case was passed to the Trading Standards OFFICE in Camden in Autumn 2005, and they passed it to the Unfair Co tract Terms section of the Office of fair Trading. The case is still with the OFT. Amtrak Have a report with the OFT, and the report is available for download here.


Forget the one above now it has moved here....

The case was still with the OFT until 2007....... FAIR trade or Fare trade?

Two years, now just look at their replies....A hopeless organization, just like the LGO, PSO, (public Sector Ombudsman), the Audit commission, Adjudicators and the judicial system in general where power changes purpose and they are more deemers and seemers, than normal.. A sickening cancerous system of 'circumlocution' centres to palliate maladministration, put every thing into thought form subjunctive arguments, and DO NOTHING about a complaint. Their exposure is coming here......http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/exposures.html

Enter the keyword search AMTRAK and you will find the report on page 10 of that word document.

The specific page is here below, and the report may also be examined from here...........

You can see the item MONEY BACK GUARANTEE was given more prominence, but in the claimant's case it made no difference whatsoever to their policy. To this day, we are still waiting for the £15 back. Clearly they prefer the adverse publicity, to the refund.

3 Amtrak Express Parcels Ltd

Name of business

Amtrak Express Parcels Ltd

Lead TSD

Bristol City Council

Trading sector

National and international courier services

Contract identifier

Conditions of carriage

Original term

Application of the Regulations (Schedule 2 paragraph or as indicated)

How changed

New term


Placed a significant limit on the availability of the ‘Money Back Guarantee’, an important feature of the service offered. The term was not drawn to the consumer’s attention, contrary to the requirement of good faith.

Revised to give more prominence to the statement that the ‘Money Back Guarantee’ does not apply where delivery is delayed by factors beyond the carrier’s control.

Important Notice – point 6


1(b): limited carrier’s liability for loss or damage as the possible causes listed may have been within the carrier’s control.

Revised to apply only to circumstances beyond the carrier’s control.



1(b): limited carrier’s liability for consequential loss.

Revised so that this limitation applies to business contracts only and not to consumer contracts.



1(q): limited jurisdiction to the English courts.

Revised to remove the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts and states that relevant United Kingdom law applies.


Other information

A notice has been added to the beginning of the contract which alerts consumer customers (as opposed to business customers) to significant terms and to terms which may limit the carrier’s liability.

Undertakings accepted

12 September 2000 Four terms revised

Unfair contract terms bulletin 13 – page 10

The Office of Fair Trading, April 2001

OFT - Copyright and linking to this site

Copyright OFT ( exposing OFT semantic gibberish soon. )

You are welcome to print these pages, link to them, or reproduce information contained on them so long as you do not distort the information contained there or, unless otherwise provided, do so for financial gain. You must acknowledge the OFT as the source of the information. We welcome your comments on any aspect of this service.

Please remember that the information on these pages can only provide general guidance and should not be read as a substitute for the law.

Linking to this site

We don't have any objections to other sites linking to ours, provided that the information contained therein is not distorted and that it is clear that the OFT is the source of the information, as we like the information we produce to be spread as widely as possible. However, as we are a government department we do not allow the link to be placed anywhere on a site where it suggests an endorsement of any kind, nor do we allow our logo to be used as a graphical link.

free webstats