Trademe?

**Headbanger** · 4th March 2010, 10:40

Originally Posted by Coldrider

Post 20 you said I should read CGA again.

I did indeed, and when this was rejected so eloquently I decided to follow my own advice to lower the chances I was talking out of my arse, This lead onto further acts of law in regards to trade in NZ.

Originally Posted by Coldrider

Offer and Acceptance goes back to before New Zealand was colonised.

Swish, where can I read up on it?,especially in regards to trade in post-colonisation times...Like here and now.

**Coldrider** · 4th March 2010, 10:47

Originally Posted by Headbanger

I did indeed, and when this was rejected I decided to follow my own advice to lower the chances I was talking out of my arse, This lead onto further acts of law in regards to trade in NZ.

Swish, where can I read up on it?,especially in regards to trade in port colonisation times...Like here and now.

I recieved my learning from Massey Uni 100 and 200 Commercial Law as papers in a BBS, at a cost of $400 plus text books each. Where did you get yours from?
I am sure you will be enlightened if you read the book mentioned in a previous post.

**Headbanger** · 4th March 2010, 11:00

Originally Posted by Coldrider

I recieved my learning from Massey Uni 100 and 200 Commercial Law as papers in a BBS, at a cost of $400 plus text books each. Where did you get yours from?
I am sure you will be enlightened if you read the book mentioned in a previous post.

Ah right, So your a bit of a dickhead. My bad for being silly enough to engage you in conversation on the topic. Still, I haven't managed to learn anything from you, That must be because your so clever.

The book you "mentioned in a previous post" was a single word with zero indication of relevance or context until you went back and edited it, what did you expect? Well, seeing as your so educated you must have deliberately kept it vague enough to be useless so you could hold onto your superiority.

That aside, I don't have access to the book, so I'll read the source, which act of law should I be reading?

**Headbanger** · 4th March 2010, 11:12

Never fear, I have asked Winston for his input, He is not only educated but also intelligent and no doubt will be able to wrap it all up for me in 2 easy to read paragraphs.

**Coldrider** · 4th March 2010, 11:21

Originally Posted by Headbanger

Never fear, I have asked Winston for his input, He is not only educated but also intelligent and no doubt will be able to wrap it all up for me in 2 easy to read paragraphs.

Well I have just gone out to the garage to retreive my old textbooks.
Offer & Acceptance is coveredin Business Law Today, R.D.Mulholland, I have 4th edition Chapter 5 page 67 onwards.
It is not up me to be to defend your arguement based on what you think the relevant Act and your interpretation is.
CGA and FTA are codifications of the Sale of goods Act 1908, which is a codification essentially of Law Merchant.
Common Law and Custom & Practice have as much to do with the law as the Statutes.

**Headbanger** · 4th March 2010, 11:27

Seeking information and clarification is not arguing, Nor is there a position to defend.

**Ixion** · 4th March 2010, 11:33

Originally Posted by Headbanger

..

That aside, I don't have access to the book, so I'll read the source, which act of law should I be reading?

Unfortunately, a lot of contract law is based in Common law, not statute law. So there are no acts to read. You need to study the case law. Even so significant a case as, for example, Hightrees, where Denning, J redefined the law of promissary estoppel (which says in effect that if someone says, 'Nah its sweet, don't need any payment mate' then he can't come back later and demand said payment. Sort of ) was based in Common law. And Equity. Equity isn't contained in statutes either. British Law is a strange mongrel child.

'Contract Law' by Richards is a good read.

Which leads to an interesting speculation. Koha. It's a sort of part of Maori contract law. Yes, I know that Maori contract law sort of doesn't exist. But it is an old axiom that the law never lacks a remedy . And koha is not a 'consideration' in the legal sense (well, I don't think it is anyway- in some cases it may be nearer to a charitable contribution. maybe ? or maybe not ? ) So if a case was brought that revolved around koha (" I gave them a koha for such and such and they cheated me") how would that be fitted into the Common law (or Equity for that matter). Also, koha can be given in advance - in anticipation as it were. In such a case, if a koha is given to a public official, is that bribery? I'm thinking back to 17C and 18C practice here. Pepys was unashamed about accepting gifts from his offical contacts - and I'm sure he didn't consider himself as being bribed. They were much more like koha. This could be a fascinating subject.

**Coldrider** · 4th March 2010, 11:35

Originally Posted by Headbanger

Seeking information and clarification is not arguing, Nor is there a position to defend.

KB Rant & Rave can be educational afterall.

**Quasievil** · 4th March 2010, 11:36

Sheesh boys (^*$%#

**Headbanger** · 4th March 2010, 11:36

Originally Posted by Ixion

Unfortunately, a lot of contract law is based in Common law, not statute law. So there are no acts to read. You need to study the case law.

Interesting, That alone explains quite a bit.

Lmao, I can see I stepped right out of my depth very early in the piece.

Never mind, I learned a new word in the process.

codification [ˌkəʊdɪfɪˈkeɪʃən ˌkɒ-]n

1. systematic organization of methods, rules, etc.
2. (Law) Law the collection into one body of the principles of a system of law

**Ixion** · 4th March 2010, 11:42

Just so. British (and thus New Zealand) law has never been codified. Edw I made a effort toward it with the Statutes of Westminster and Gloucester, but then lost interest and went off to get drunk and go whoring and fighting - motorcycles hadn't been invented then , but I think he'd have been right at home here.

Some folk think the lack of codification is a bad thing. Others, including me, think it a good thing.

**Coldrider** · 4th March 2010, 11:44

Koha would fall under a 'gratuitous promise' and not be enforceable unless made in a form of a deed. (from my understanding).

**avgas** · 4th March 2010, 11:46

Originally Posted by Headbanger

Any business that thinks they have 50 days to supply the purchased item deserves to go broke.

Heh no they don't - that time is actually quick.
Big firms such as GE, Siemens etc give me 8+ week dropship times...........

**Ixion** · 4th March 2010, 11:49

Koha would fall under a 'gratuitous promise' and not be enforceable unless made in a form of a deed. (from my understanding).

Yes, under English law. Probably. A gratuitous promise (" You're a good cunt, I'll stand you a beer next time we meet") is not actionable unless under seal. Mainly, I think, because it is a specific case of the general principle that no action can lie , save by deed, if there is no consideration given . But I think it is more complex than that - koha was/is not entriely gratuitous there is an expectation of value given and received. And the Common law has always been willing to consider importing attributes of native law. After all, that's how it originated - importing the native law of those rascally Anglo-Saxons. So I think that koha could be argued uner contract law. Possibly. As I said, a fascinating subject. I hope the churchillian gentleman comes along (and Mr HDC perhaps) - it could be quite interesting.