Guest makapaka Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 7 hours ago, Cyclone said: You are making that argument in isolation in an attempt to justify the tree felling that took place in order to make the contract cheaper for Amey. No you assume that every comment I make on the subject is in support of amey and the council. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 It's the way that you keep finding terrible arguments to support the removal of trees, or at least to suggest that it's not so bad. How can that be anything other than in support of what was done, which happened to be something that you defended for, well, 194 pages approx. On 17/12/2017 at 16:28, makapaka said: Penalty clauses in contract law aren’t enforcable - so there won’t be any in the contract between the council and amey. Next unsupported conspiracy? Was this your first contribution to the thread, back in Dec 17. Turned out to be wrong didn't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest makapaka Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 1 hour ago, Cyclone said: It's the way that you keep finding terrible arguments to support the removal of trees, or at least to suggest that it's not so bad. How can that be anything other than in support of what was done, which happened to be something that you defended for, well, 194 pages approx. Was this your first contribution to the thread, back in Dec 17. Turned out to be wrong didn't it. No. Unless you’ve established that penalty clauses are now enforceable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_the_m Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 46 minutes ago, makapaka said: No. Unless you’ve established that penalty clauses are now enforceable. Oh no not this again. When the word "penalty" is being used in a strict and narrow legal sense, penalties weren't enforceable - until the Supreme Court decided they sometimes were, in PE vs Beavis, 2015. However, in the colloquial sense used in everyday life (such as people posting on this forum), "penalty" means something in a contract which says that if you don't perform to the levels specified in the contract, you may get paid less, or you may have to pay for remedial work, or the contract may be terminated without cost to the injured party, etc, etc. So when someone on this forum talks about Amey (or SCC) paying penalties, they clearly mean it in the colloquial sense. To insist on the narrow legal meaning is unhelpful sophistlry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest makapaka Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 1 hour ago, dave_the_m said: Oh no not this again. When the word "penalty" is being used in a strict and narrow legal sense, penalties weren't enforceable - until the Supreme Court decided they sometimes were, in PE vs Beavis, 2015. However, in the colloquial sense used in everyday life (such as people posting on this forum), "penalty" means something in a contract which says that if you don't perform to the levels specified in the contract, you may get paid less, or you may have to pay for remedial work, or the contract may be terminated without cost to the injured party, etc, etc. So when someone on this forum talks about Amey (or SCC) paying penalties, they clearly mean it in the colloquial sense. To insist on the narrow legal meaning is unhelpful sophistlry. Whatever. I didn’t bring it up. I was just explaining why it was incorrect to say I was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 (edited) On 13/07/2019 at 09:56, makapaka said: No. Unless you’ve established that penalty clauses are now enforceable. I'm fairly sure that you actually reversed your position on that at least once. You called it an unsupported conspiracy, but the council confirmed multiple times that they were going to have to pay Amey extra for Amey failing to complete the contract on time even though the delay wasn't down to any action or inaction of the council. You went to some length to then explain why this was entirely fair if I remember. Edited July 14, 2019 by Cyclone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest makapaka Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 39 minutes ago, Cyclone said: I'm fairly sure that you actually reversed your position on that at least once. You called it an unsupported conspiracy, but the council confirmed multiple times that they were going to have to pay Amey extra for Amey failing to complete the contract on time even though the delay wasn't down to any action or inaction of the council. You went to some length to then explain why this was entirely fair if I remember. No. You just never understood what I was talking about and dumbed the discussion down by just trying to make it about me supporting the council. i don’t intend going through it all again either - it was boring by the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 I understood what you were claiming throughout, it did appear at times like you didn't understand what we were discussing though, for example when you claimed that we'd not seen the contract, but what you actually meant was that you'd not bothered to look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primemover70 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 Stop paying the ******** . . . Easy . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrewer Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 On 11/07/2019 at 13:17, Cyclone said: That's a terrible argument for removing mature trees. New FOI backs up many of your arguments Cyclone. https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/politics/council/newly-released-email-reveals-sheffield-council-had-financial-interest-felling-5400-street-trees-1338831?amp 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