Re: car salesman : Tue Apr 29, 2014 9:06 pm  

Read the first line of my post. Bye Bye

Re: car salesman : Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:18 pm  

Anyone who went to court claiming that they took an opinion for which they had asked in an internet rugby league forum, from someone they don't know, pretending to be an aardvark, as formal legal advice, the most likely outcome is they would be sectioned.

Re: car salesman : Wed Apr 30, 2014 5:50 am  

Euclid wrote:

Read the first line of my post. Bye Bye

You have an opinion, you are entitled to an opinion and you are entitled to express it.

So is everyone else.

Its nice to be able to back up that opinion though rather than stomp off in a Violet Elizabeth Bott huff.

Re: car salesman : Wed Apr 30, 2014 11:50 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Anyone who went to court claiming that they took an opinion for which they had asked in an internet rugby league forum, from someone they don't know, pretending to be an aardvark, as formal legal advice, the most likely outcome is they would be sectioned.

What if they were an administrator of the forum who knew the would-be aardvark's real persona?

Re: car salesman : Wed Apr 30, 2014 1:17 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

Advice given, even informally, can result in a professional negligence claim. There have been cases where lawyers have been sued off the back of advice given at parties.

There was also a case where a trainee solicitor's firm was sued because she gave some 'off the cuff' advice in a 5 minute interview to someone who stuck their head round the office door. Advice turned out to be wrong, the person who relied on it lost a considerable sum of money, and the firm got sued.

Have you got links to these, because they stink of BS to me.

Re: car salesman : Thu May 01, 2014 10:33 am  

Dally wrote:

What if they were an administrator of the forum who knew the would-be aardvark's real persona?

That is purely academic. My logic is thus:
1. If the would-be aardvark was indeed a qualified lawyer, and was known to the administrator of the forum, then it seems to me exceedingly improbable that the question would be posed via a public message board rather than more traditional methods such as, say, over a pint, or down the phone.
2. An administrator who thus chose the forum method of communication in such a case would have to be exceedingly stupid, or mentally defective.
3. We all know that our administrators highly intelligent and not at all stupid.
4. Therefore the situation is purely hypothetical and could not happen in real life.
QED

Re: car salesman : Thu May 01, 2014 10:42 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote: Have you got links to these, because they stink of BS to me. BS it is not. I think he probably has Padden -v- Bevan Ashford in mind. If you want a brief potted summary, there's an article here, it was first time round but the second appeal went the same way and in general the findings stood.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote: Have you got links to these, because they stink of BS to me. BS it is not. I think he probably has Padden -v- Bevan Ashford in mind. If you want a brief potted summary, there's an article here, it was first time round but the second appeal went the same way and in general the findings stood.

Re: car salesman : Thu May 01, 2014 11:52 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: BS it is not. I think he probably has Padden -v- Bevan Ashford in mind. If you want a brief potted summary, there's an article here, it was first time round but the second appeal went the same way and in general the findings stood. But in the Court of Appeal last month, Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger found the trial judge had been wrong to ‘write off’ Bevan Ashford’s role at the second meeting, and had been ‘overimpressed’ by the fact that Padden’s consultation with Shinner was short and free of charge. It wasn't the first meeting that got the solicitors firm in trouble. She was actually going against what the first solicitor told her. It was the partner in the law firm who made the error and made them liable: "A few weeks later, Padden took the relevant documents to Bevan Ashford’s Exeter office, where partner Gary Mackay witnessed their signature and certified that the consequences had been explained."

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: BS it is not. I think he probably has Padden -v- Bevan Ashford in mind. If you want a brief potted summary, there's an article here, it was first time round but the second appeal went the same way and in general the findings stood. But in the Court of Appeal last month, Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger found the trial judge had been wrong to ‘write off’ Bevan Ashford’s role at the second meeting, and had been ‘overimpressed’ by the fact that Padden’s consultation with Shinner was short and free of charge. It wasn't the first meeting that got the solicitors firm in trouble. She was actually going against what the first solicitor told her. It was the partner in the law firm who made the error and made them liable: "A few weeks later, Padden took the relevant documents to Bevan Ashford’s Exeter office, where partner Gary Mackay witnessed their signature and certified that the consequences had been explained."

Re: car salesman : Thu May 01, 2014 4:03 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

It wasn't the first meeting that got the solicitors firm in trouble. She was actually going against what the first solicitor told her. It was the partner in the law firm who made the error and made them liable:

"A few weeks later, Padden took the relevant documents to Bevan Ashford’s Exeter office, where partner Gary Mackay witnessed their signature and certified that the consequences had been explained."

I agree that he was complicit, but it seems like he just acted as a document witnesser, perhaps assuming that he could rely on whatever advice had been given by the trainee and not looking into it. However it very clearly was a combination of the first meeting, when insufficient advice was given, and the second, when dangerous assumptions were made, that got them into trouble. Both were at fault, the trainee for not having the skill to see a traincrash coming, and the partner for not supervising/reviewing properly.

Anyway, in law, it was the first (and the second) meeting that got them into trouble, cos the court so found:

Judge Vosper found that it inevitably followed that there was a breach of duty, both by Ms. Shinner on 28 March and by Mr. Mackay on 10 April, in failing to evaluate the risk of the prosecution of her husband that Mrs Padden, above all else, sought to avoid.

And perhaps more to the point,

It is not necessary to say more about the breach of duty found by the Judge, as the defendants do not seek to contest that finding on this appeal.

Mackay could have nipped the trouble in the bud, had he been sufficiently on his toes, but from the claimant's perspective (and in law) the advice of both Shinner and Mackay made the firm liable. Shinner, if you like, set the train running. Mackay failed to apply the brakes. You are free to have your own view, but you are in disagreement with the Judge, the solicitors themselves, and the Court of Appeal.