On one of the other threads, I said I would post details of an interesting Scots case. The following is taken as a direct quote from Enid Marshall's "General Principles of Scots Law"

"Illegality by statute

(1) A statute may declare a particular type of agreement void. The court will then neither enforce such an agreement nor award damages for breach of it.

However, the court may give effects to rights which are incidental to the agreement declared void, in order to prevent one party from gaining an unfair advantage over the other. The principle operating is that of recompense, a breach of quasi-contract. An examlple of such a situation is the case of Cuthbertson v. Lowes (1870) 8 M. 1073:

C. sold potatoes to L. at £24 per Scots acre. L. recieved the potatoes but did not pay the full price, and when C. brought an action for the balance, L. put forward as his defence that the contract was void by the Weights & Measures Acts, since it used a local measure instead of an imperial one

The court held that, although the contract could not be enforced, C. was entitled to recieve the market price of the potatoes which he had supplied: otherwise L. would have gained an unfair advantage over C.

The court will not intervene in this way to give effect to incidental rights unless the agreement is one which is unobjectionable at common law: there must be no "turpis causa" ("turpitude", "immorality")"

I'll let everyone else comment on this before I say any more....

Hey

I thought it was an interesting case that had plus points for both "sides"

I don't have a hidden agenda - it wasn't posted to get a "pro-imperial" reply and then destroy the poster by bringing out another hidden fact.

I think the case says:

1) A trader should trade in prescribed units of measurement.
2) If he doesn't trade in prescribed units, the courts will still enforce his right to be paid a reasonable price for the goods.

I know it's a Scots case, but Scots Law can still be influential on Engish Appeals in the same way that English Appeal cases are influential on Scots Courts.

Cosidering some of the paranoia that has appeared on the board re what happens on 1/1/10, I thought that 2) above might actually help the pro-imperial case in some small way.

Comments????

Re: Scots W&M appeal case August 9 2004, 11:37 PM

Beranger:

Hey

I thought it was an interesting case that had plus points for both "sides"

I don't have a hidden agenda - it wasn't posted to get a "pro-imperial" reply and then destroy the poster by bringing out another hidden fact.

I think the case says:

1) A trader should trade in prescribed units of measurement.
2) If he doesn't trade in prescribed units, the courts will still enforce his right to be paid a reasonable price for the goods.

I know it's a Scots case, but Scots Law can still be influential on Engish Appeals in the same way that English Appeal cases are influential on Scots Courts.

Cosidering some of the paranoia that has appeared on the board re what happens on 1/1/10, I thought that 2) above might actually help the pro-imperial case in some small way.

Comments????

metre:
If that law is applied, all I see is an overloaded judicial system, or people just take their loss and don't bother to waste time and money on court cases for peanuts.

^^^Blip^^^

"C. sold potatoes to L. at £24 per Scots acre. L. recieved the potatoes but did not pay the full price, and when C. brought an action for the balance, L. put forward as his defence that the contract was void by the Weights & Measures Acts, since it used a local measure instead of an imperial one"

To be honest, if the two parties agreed to buy and sell at an agreed figure, in whatever way, then that should be contractual and binding.

But then I prefer to barter than have my **** wiped by the state.

P.S. I *CANNOT* see that 2010 thing happening and I'm willing to bet 8 ounces of fine gold on it.

re (Beranger): "I'll let everyone else comment on this before I say any more..."


REPLY: I think the Scottish case is really about a legal principle calld 'equity', i.e., when you've stripped away all the silly legal technicalities, principles and regulations that may apply, what is a fair result between the parties? The person who paid nothing for his potatoes was trying it on....

I see it was a Scottish case. The person who refused to pay wasn't a Scot, was he?

Tony
I don't know.
Why would a legal textbook give nationality unless it was relevant to the case?
My understanding is that Scots courts are supposed to treat everyone equally regardless of race/nationality.
As, of course, does the English system....
Remember, however, that the defendant welshed on the deal!

Re: Scots W&M appeal case August 12 2004, 7:46 PM

Beranger:
Tony
I don't know.
Why would a legal textbook give nationality unless it was relevant to the case?
My understanding is that Scots courts are supposed to treat everyone equally regardless of race/nationality.
As, of course, does the English system....
Remember, however, that the defendant welshed on the deal!

metre:
I think you missed the point here?

^^^Another annoying blip^^^

Berenger - Now now! We can all play the devils advocate, you know!

And what's all this about "welshing"...?

re (Beranger): "My understanding is that Scots courts are supposed to treat everyone equally regardless of race/nationality. As, of course, does the English system..."

REPLY: Both legal systems suffer from an obvious defect, namely that the law may only be invoked by those who can afford to pay for it. There are many other imperfections, but then every human institution has defects.

Whether either the Scottish or English Courts treat everyone equally regardless of race/nationality is a moot point, I think

metre:
"I think you missed the point here?"

I don't think I did.

Let me explain in words of one syllable.

1)Tony made a joke about Scots being mean.

2)I used this joke to set up a (bad)joke re the Welsh.

3)I also had a sly dig at cases like the Birmingham 6

Got it?

Tony

Agree totally with your access to justice point.

Please, please don't take my post above as any indication that I support illegal organisations or the use of violence as a means of achieving political ends.

Simply, it was the highest profile case that came to mind. Whether you or I agree with the courts decision, it was the decision that the judge came to

<<
Why would a legal textbook give nationality unless it was relevant to the case?
>>

There were three references to Scotland in the original posting:

References 1 & 2
<<
On one of the other threads, I said I would post details of an interesting Scots case. The following is taken as a direct quote from Enid Marshall's "General Principles of Scots Law"
>>

Since Scots Law is different to English Law, it is neccessary for the writer to define which law he is talking about. [One difference that has emerged in recent years is that wheel-clamping in Scotland was found to be a form of extortion and was therefore illegal]



Reference 3
<<
C. sold potatoes to L. at £24 per Scots acre. L. recieved the potatoes but did not pay the full price, and when C. brought an action for the balance, L. put forward as his defence that the contract was void by the Weights & Measures Acts, since it used a local measure instead of an imperial one
>>

A Scots acre is different to an Imperial [or English] acre. This difference was the centre-piece of the court case.

"Why would a legal textbook give nationality unless it was relevant to the case?"

By this, I meant the nationality of the parties to the case, not the locus of the court. Obviously, nationality or race of the parties would be important in a sectarian or racist crime, but is unimportant in most cases.

The centre-piece of the case was actually the requirement to sell potatoes by weight. A Scots Acre is not an Imperial Stone or Pound.

My local Trading Standards Office has a copy of an old poster on one of the office walls. It's around 100 years old. It sets out the fines for using the old Scots Measures & insists that Imperial measures must be used.

"My local Trading Standards Office has a copy of an old poster on one of the office walls. It's around 100 years old. It sets out the fines for using the old Scots Measures & insists that Imperial measures must be used."

Tony, metric martyrs, BWMA and Bryan, let me quote the King James Bible just for a sec (Matt.7,3):
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

Re: Scots W&M appeal case August 13 2004, 7:14 PM


metre:
"I think you missed the point here?"

Beranger:
I don't think I did.

Let me explain in words of one syllable.

1)Tony made a joke about Scots being mean.

2)I used this joke to set up a (bad)joke re the Welsh.

3)I also had a sly dig at cases like the Birmingham 6

Got it?
metre: My apology. I usually skip Tony's long and often tedious posts.

^^^ Blip! ^^^

Conrad, so I don't consider myself when judging others? So what are you referrign to then, because I am confused.

Bryan: "Conrad, so I don't consider myself when judging others? So what are you referrign to then, because I am confused."

Well, imperialists always keep complaining about the fact that the EU forbids them to use imperial in their everyday life, whereas England did the same in the past with Scottish weights and measures.

Conrad, don't *YOU* get into the 'terrible twins' mistake of redefining the word "imperialist" from those who want to colonise to those who like the word "inch" !

;-)

(and, yes, i do suspect you of tauntary)

I never once said it was good Scotch measures were abolished. Also, I do not really complain about the EU in this way.