Tons of Free Timber

[Philly]

Hi Folks
With my upcoming move I realise that I have nowhere to keep my stocks of quality hardwoods. So I am giving it all away.
There is about 12 cubes of walnut, 8 of cherry and 4 of maple plus various exotics and a small amount of the local "edwood".
Cheers
Philly :-s

 

[paulm]

Hmmm, sounds unlikely and a bit too good to be true :shock:

Will the offer last past today :?: :lol:

 

[wizer]

:wink:

 

[ikd]

What do you take me for - a fool 8)

 

[Waka]

Philly

I have plenty of storage space for all your timber.

 

[Philly]

Alright-I own up! April's Fool! :lol: \/
Many thanks for the kind offers-sadly, I have the storage situation sorted. :wink:
Cheers
Philly

 

[Mcluma]

Damm, I and was already on my way with the van

 

[Chris Knight]

Philly,

Sorry to say this but your offer and our acceptance constitute a contract. If you fail to fulfill your obligations under the contract (ie to deliver up the wood), then we shall have no option other than to seek a remedy in the courts.

Given the high level of excitement and expectation that your offer created, it will also be fair to seek not just completion of the contract but also damages for consequential loss brought about by stress, loss of reputation (most of us had on-sold the wood already and now have big disappointed clients) and so forth.

Please make it easy on yourself and give us our wood, you know it makes sense!

 

[RogerS]

Excellent, Chris

 

[Gill]

You're not far off the truth, Chris !

If someone had been unaware that Philly wasn't being genuine and had acted in reliance upon his offer (for example, by hiring a van and travelling down to Poole) then Philly could have been legally estopped from revoking the offer.

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] 1 KB 130, Ajayi v Briscoe [1964] 1 WLR 1326 apply.

Gill

 

[martyn2]

You're not far off the truth, Chris !

If someone had been unaware that Philly wasn't being genuine and had acted in reliance upon his offer (for example, by hiring a van and travelling down to Poole) then Philly could have been legally estopped from revoking the offer.

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] 1 KB 130, Ajayi v Briscoe [1964] 1 WLR 1326 apply.

Gill

new job Gill

 

[mahking51]

Philly,
You will be hearing from my solicitors, Messrs Snipcock & Littlehampton, in the very near future seeking compensation for my ruptured truss as I ran for my van.....
Regards
Martin

 

[mahking51]

Gill
Remind me never to upset you!
Martin

 

[Gill]

new job Gill

Old job, actually . I studied law for 4 years (It was a thick sandwich course which had a placement in legal practice) but I didn't like it. After graduating I pursued another line of work, but it's surprising how much of my studies I can still remember.

Gill

 

[Philly]

You lot are scaring the bejesus out of me! :shock:
Excellent work, Chris. Although I have contacted Martin's solicitors, who will be contactling you "shortly" :lol:
Sadly, Martyn2 was round before the lot of you. I thought it a little unnecessary to crowbar the garage door off Martyn :wink: :lol:
Cheers
TheJokerPreviouslyKnowAsPhilly :lol:

 

[Jake]

You're not far off the truth, Chris !

If someone had been unaware that Philly wasn't being genuine and had acted in reliance upon his offer (for example, by hiring a van and travelling down to Poole) then Philly could have been legally estopped from revoking the offer.

Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] 1 KB 130, Ajayi v Briscoe [1964] 1 WLR 1326 apply.

Gill

"Estoppel is a shield, not a sword"

 

[Gill]

Hi Jake

I presume you're referring to Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215 in which a divorced wife tried to exploit her destitute former husband? It was hardly surprising that Denning should seek to turn a remedy founded in equity so as to produce what he considered to be the most just solution. Yet in the same judgment he said:

"The principle, as I understand it, is that whether one party has, by his words or conduct, made to the other a promise or assurance which was intended to affect the legal relations between them and to be acted on accordingly, then, once the other party has taken him at his word and acted on it, the one who gave the promise or assurance cannot afterwards be allowed to revert to the previous legal relations as if no such promise or assurance had been made by him, but he must accept their legal relations subject to the qualification which he himself has so introduced, even though it is not supported in point of law by any consideration, but only by his words."

Although Denning was quite prepared to try to explain away his apparent inconsistencies in that case (and you how successful his convoluted arguments were remains a matter of debate), subsequent cases such as Re Wyven Developments [1974] 1 WLR 1097 and Evenden v Guildford City AFC [1975] QB 917 rather weakened Combe v Combe. The judgments of both Templeman J and even Lord Denning himself cast doubt upon the existance of any "Estoppel is a shield, not a sword" doctrine.

Since Philly's promise would have fallen within the context of the Denning quotation given earlier if another party had acted in good faith on his representation, there is little doubt in my mind that Philly would have been on a very sticky legal wicket. It's quite feasible that someone might have taken Philly at his word, jumped into a vehicle, and raced to beat anyone else to the booty. Philly's promise would have changed the legal relationships between the parties and it would have been intentional because Philly was trying to dupe forum members with his hoax. According to Denning, he would have been estopped from revoking the offer.

Gill

 

[Jake]

What I meant was that there is a general (and fundamental) principle that equitable remedies (such as those for estoppel) cannot be used offensively, but only defensively.

So if someone had raced down to Philly's, loaded up the timber without Philly noticing, and headed off, then yes, they concievably could raise estoppel as a defence against an action brought by Philly to get his timber back.

What they can't do is claim against Philly for breach of the bare promise if he doesn't hand over the timber - that is trying to use estoppel "as a sword". Equity will only get you so far, it doesn't negate the basic rules of contract entirely - even for Denning who was, bless his soul, very fond of its flexibility.

 

[Alf]

<dink dink> Hello? I say? April Fools has finished now... :roll:

Cheers, Alf

 

[martyn2]

You lot are scaring the bejesus out of me! :shock:
Excellent work, Chris. Although I have contacted Martin's solicitors, who will be contactling you "shortly" :lol:
Sadly, Martyn2 was round before the lot of you. I thought it a little unnecessary to crowbar the garage door off Martyn :wink: :lol:
Cheers
TheJokerPreviouslyKnowAsPhilly :lol:

well it made it a bit easer to get the wood out, funney your wife was helping me load it :? :wink:

Martyn