I am sure 180 Out can explain but the basis of common law started with William the Conquerer some 400 years before Columbus discovered your great country and given that your own law has its roots in English common law, I assume it works in pretty much the same way. My major complaint is the high cost of litigation in such a dispute but at least it stops the frivolous claims and class actions more commonly seen on your side of the pond. I take Cheeseys point on Judaical bias as the choice of Judge can effect the way the case is heard, but is this not a universal problem ?
Many thanks and I had just worked that out from reading Wikipedia Can we thank the English founding fathers for your law of contracts and blame the French for Louisiana ?
Your account about contracts and contract law is not correct, and as to US vs UK law I think it is the same. Ambiguous Term: The law - contract law as to "ambiguous terms" is first, the court must decide if the term is ambiguous. The law defines an "ambiguous term" as a term that has two reasonable interpretations. The relevant facts - HOA para 3 expressly states "to sell the Car by public auction at no reserve at the Goodwood Revival in September 2013." That term is NOT capable of two reasonable interpretations, thus, there will be no contract law argument about interpretation. To hold otherwise would shred hundreds of years of jurisprudence. FWIW, once a term is ambiguous, then the law is that the ambiguity is construed against the drafter and the court adopts the reasonable interpretation of the non-drafter. Good Faith: I think the HOA did have an implied duty to act in good faith. If you believe the HOA did not have an implied duty of good faith, then how do you square that with HOA para. 4's "Bonhams, BC, and OC will all work closely together to resolve all problems realting to the Car's history and ownership" or HOA para. 9 "BC and OC Parties will give full disclosure to one another . . ." Those express terms created an implied duty of good faith IMHO. Fiduciary Duty: In addition to good faith, I think the HOA created a fiduciary duty on behalf of Bonhams towards ALL consignors. Your thoughts? For reference: Bill took the time to transcribe the HOA, so I will refer you to his post at p80 post 1598, or p91 post 1807, or p118 post 2351, or p146 post 2917. HOA in raw form at p80 post 1597, or p85 post 1697, or p119 post 2378. And I have not yet begun to address the fraudulent inducement (misrepresntation) issue, or the "stay" versus "dismiss with prejudice" issue, the former which may make all the above moot while the latter may show the HOA is not a binding contract or show that Swaters and Bonhams breached the HOA, depending on how it is analyzed. Joe *
Joe, you are clearly the expert on law on both sides of the Atlantic, not me. Tell it all to Mr Justice Flaux but I can say he didn't sound very convinced when he told your Barrister you should stop "looking for skeletons" and prepare a consolidated list of the issues rather than numerous and irrelevant filings. K
From what was discussed at the hearing and posted on the site, Zanotti is claiming an outstanding balance of £1m due to them under a £2m settlement agreement with Bonhams. The original claim by Zanotti was that 0384 contained parts that were stolen from him, specifically the engine that was purchased by Swaters and reunited with the car. Joe can fill in the detail but the grounds on which Bonhams are refusing payment was not disclosed but I suspect it to be some form of duress given the timing of the original claim just before the auction.
An ad hominem attack (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments.
Regretfully ad hominem attacks have become de facto on this thread although I could argue that a mans character is an important factor in assessing his argument
Quite possibly true, but then that would be something for you to keep in mind when deciding whose argument is more persuasive to you. Attacking the character of those with whom you disagree in order to make your own argument more persuasive is something that has never been allowed on this forum. If users feel the need to characterize each other as dishonest, deceitful, or immoral, then they should take their bickering to email or some other form of private communication.
Correction subject to your further comment. Columbus who is generally credited with the European discovery of America in 1492 although there are creditable earlier claims made by the Phoenicians, Vikings and the English.
If I read it right, the Judge in London said desist from trying to decide this case on social media - or else! Hence silence - and rightly so.
Since the London Court records are not as easily accessible as the Ohio Court records, you would have to attend the London Hearings yourself or read what the press has to say or know someone who was there in person to be able to relay certain things that Justice Flaux said. The Court Room is open to the public on these hearings, anyone is welcome to attend, including myself. Accordingly, Justice Flaux will be the only one making the decisions about ownership claims, the title, and the lot and the Ohio Court will have no part in his decision. One of the issues brought up was the continuing commentary on Ferrari Chat. The Judge read some of what Mr. Ford has posted on FerrariChat and said it was pretty disgraceful. One of the Barristers argued what is posted is completely inaccurate and inflamatory and seems to be opinions from both sides of the fence. ​An order barring further postings to the site was made and ​​specifically directed it against Lawson and Ford to prevent scurrilous chat going on, which, already is potentially contemptuous and put a gag order on Mr. Ford. Flaux made it clear that anyone who continues to post comments concerning the case on Ferrari Chat or any Chat site or anywhere on the internet and violates his order will be in contempt. If there is a breach, then he will deal with Ford when he shows up. So, if you haven’t heard much from Joey Ford, it’s because he has a sock in his mouth. Not much else to say. I booked my flight for F1 Monaco and for the next hearing in London on June 5. Image Unavailable, Please Login
How far do you go back for discovering? I suppose its since records began maybe, the same as who discovered Ferrari, we know it was "Enzo" as the founder, if he was born with another surname, I wonder what would be the outcome now. The vintage paths we make are what others follow.
Columbus and those around him may not not have had first hand knowledge, he may have heard rumors, he set out to verify those rumors, which he discovered to be true... :=) "in 1492 he went to Queen Isabela to ask for ships and cargo, said he would kiss her royal backside if he didn't find Chicago..."
Nice to see that while the subject of this thread may have shifted the quality of the discourse hasn't.
We haven't had any proper tittle tattle in this thread for awhile, but some just popped into my head. It has to do with Les Wexner's apparent intent to fight this thing out to the bitter end. Essentially he claims that someone shopping for one of a kind 60 year old $20 million Ferrari race cars gets to be as stupid as he wants to be. Unlike you or me if we buy a $3,000 beater out of some guy's driveway, and the "recently rebuilt" tranny self destructs a week later, Wexner contends that he is entitled to rely entirely on the self-interested representations of a bunch of used car salesman, and can return his purchase for a full refund if any of their statements turns out not to match the idiosyncratic meanings he has ascribed to them. My first bit of tittle tattle is that rescission is an equitable remedy. This means this request for relief will be presented to the judge, not a jury. If Wexner's case for rescission depends on a theory of fraud, in addition to showing that the defendant's representations were false, he must also show (a) that he actually relied on the representations, and (b) that it was reasonable for him to do so. It's part (b) where Wexner might run into some trouble. It is unlikely that Justice Flaux is going to buy Wexner's babe-in-the-woods story of justifiable ignorance. The inclusion of the word "due" in the term due diligence implies that the level of inquiry to which a buyer will be reasonably held will vary according to the circumstances of the transaction. A $20 million purchase price for a single car, where the sellers are hidden from view and the sellers' agents openly disavow any personal history or relationship with, or knowledge of, the goods on offer, should reasonably present a forest of red flags to a duly diligent buyer. Compare that common-sense analysis with the following observations of one alleged eye witness to Wexner's inspection of the car, prior to the auction: "I followed the Ferrari auction last summer . I was at that sale with a mate of mine in Hampshire. The buyer of that Ferrari, Les Wexner owner of Victorias Secret, bought the car without any examination or even a test drive. First saw the car 1 hour before bidding, walked around the car once and said 'It is what it is.' I was standing there. Guy gave us the impression it was like ordering a chippy, no big deal. He paid 10,000,000 pounds without crawling under it or starting the motor. Its called parking money. Seems Wexner has 50 of these Ferrari cars with a major Picasso hanging over each of them, and still 4 billion pounds to spare. Thats one lucky old man ! Underwear models, art and Ferraris and more money than anyone can spend." Tittle tattle number two is this: that if rescission is not available, then Wexner is limited to an award of damages only. The measure of damages for the tort of fraud would be the difference between the fair market value of the car if the defendants' false representations had been true, and the actual fair market value of the car, as is and with all faults. Ironically, however, the same litigation in which Wexner is alleging that his car was falsely represented as having a clear title, will also be resolving all clouds on the title and will produce, voila, a car having a clear title. In other words, at the conclusion of trial that which was false will now be true. The car as represented and the car, as is, will be one and the same. I leave you to ponder these things with the stern visage of Justice Flaux to keep you company. Image Unavailable, Please Login
There are some surprising emails posted on the "other site" that may be the cause for Justice Flaux's stern visage but they also make a mockery of the "I first knew there was a problem when I happened to read Phatboys one and only post" claim. At the last hearing, Wexners posse of Queens Councellors repeatedly asked that Bonhams made clear what their intention was when they made their representations on "clear title and litigation" as they saw this as the critical issue for their case and the mediation. Bonhams maintained they had already responded but this indicates that Wexners principal line of attack is that you can ignore everything if Bonhams say it is OK Otherwise, I am curious about the Wexner collection of motor cars. What's the theme and does anyone have any idea of what is in the collection ?
Ferrari...Ferrari...Ferrari...Ferrari, "He wants one of each." That is what a former associate of Wexner's told me just 2 days ago. Ferrari's and more Ferrari's... Image Unavailable, Please Login
