Guest Posted August 4, 2017 Share Posted August 4, 2017 If the case hinges on the claim that they returned them unopened because they were addressed to the wrong person, but they were in fact opened, then surely that would be relevant. The OP stated that B did not open the correspondence and returned it to the sender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairyloon Posted August 4, 2017 Share Posted August 4, 2017 May I trouble you for a link to the story? ---------- Post added 04-08-2017 at 10:42 ---------- If the case hinges on the claim that they returned them unopened because they were addressed to the wrong person, but they were in fact opened, then surely that would be relevant. IF so then yes, but we have established as not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litotes Posted August 4, 2017 Share Posted August 4, 2017 Ok, so if someone sent me a letter saying Mrs rather than Miss or Ms and I refused it what would the law be? Also, if they are saying they received a letter but didn't open it then how can they know the letter they ignored was court papers? Are you aware that Mrs, Ms and Miss were all shortened forms of the word Mistress? So actually, that defence shouldn't stand in court... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 4, 2017 Share Posted August 4, 2017 The OP stated that B did not open the correspondence and returned it to the sender. Yes, and I'm quite clearly asking if the court would actually have a record of it being returned and the state it was in. Presumably B is capable of lying. It seems (to me) given that they voluntarily use the title Mr with regards to companies that don't offer other options (their insurance company for example) unlikely that they return all correspondence unopened when addressed to the title they've used for business dealings that they initiate. Does that seem likely to you? ---------- Post added 04-08-2017 at 18:46 ---------- May I trouble you for a link to the story? ---------- Post added 04-08-2017 at 10:42 ---------- IF so then yes, but we have established as not. No we haven't. All we have is a claim about what happened. Whether it actually did happen isn't established at all. ---------- Post added 04-08-2017 at 18:48 ---------- Are you aware that Mrs, Ms and Miss were all shortened forms of the word Mistress? So actually, that defence shouldn't stand in court... The linguistic origin of words isn't the point though. Mr is a shortening of the term Master, which is generally only used for non adult males today, but that's irrelevant if the correct title is under modern usage Mr and not Master. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now