Insurance without WOF

[nodrog:Me]

a big negative buddy.
common, as defined in a blacks' law dictionary (the kind that they use when writing legislation), is defined as having the UNIVERSAL ASSENT of the people.

the legislation that the monkeys in the beehive pump out is not common law, it is statute law, or legislation.
for one, it does not have MY consent OR assent. for twosies, i'm sure lots of people drive at 120km/h, or more, that seems to be the will of the people, instead of having the common right to do that, we have POLICy Enforcers, threatening us with tasers and glocks to comply with the statute law, and only travel at 100km/h


here's a bouviers law dictionary:
"COMMON LAW. That which derives its force and authority from the universal
consent and immemorial practice of the people."



what an insurance company chooses to do in any given circumstance is up to them, it was a simple fact that legally (by legislation) a private contract cannot overrule or superceed the legislation applicable to the jurisdiction under which it was made.

with me champ? grab a law dictionary and sift through legislation.govt.nz, you may surprise yourself.
and if you're interested, check out http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/thema...timebomb.shtml - the govt that's issuing this legislation and enFORCE-ing it on us, is actually illegal.

Do you sell ice creams?

[Ferkletastic]

a big negative buddy.
common, as defined in a blacks' law dictionary (the kind that they use when writing legislation), is defined as having the UNIVERSAL ASSENT of the people.

the legislation that the monkeys in the beehive pump out is not common law, it is statute law, or legislation.
for one, it does not have MY consent OR assent. for twosies, i'm sure lots of people drive at 120km/h, or more, that seems to be the will of the people, instead of having the common right to do that, we have POLICy Enforcers, threatening us with tasers and glocks to comply with the statute law, and only travel at 100km/h


here's a bouviers law dictionary:
"COMMON LAW. That which derives its force and authority from the universal
consent and immemorial practice of the people."



what an insurance company chooses to do in any given circumstance is up to them, it was a simple fact that legally (by legislation) a private contract cannot overrule or superceed the legislation applicable to the jurisdiction under which it was made.

with me champ? grab a law dictionary and sift through legislation.govt.nz, you may surprise yourself.
and if you're interested, check out http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/thema...timebomb.shtml - the govt that's issuing this legislation and enFORCE-ing it on us, is actually illegal.

Are you DB under a new account?

I was in insurance for years, including claim investigation and was involved in a LOT of court action on behalf of a major international insurer regarding liability for cover and damage regarding traffic collisions.

Simply for the reasons pointed out above regarding the insurance law reform act you are wrong. Unless the WOF status is directly contributory to the loss it cannot be used to decline a claim. I've seen the tested in court more than once.

[Ferkletastic]

Do you sell ice creams?

Haha, snap.

[Oscar]

a big negative buddy.
common, as defined in a blacks' law dictionary (the kind that they use when writing legislation), is defined as having the UNIVERSAL ASSENT of the people.

the legislation that the monkeys in the beehive pump out is not common law, it is statute law, or legislation.
for one, it does not have MY consent OR assent. for twosies, i'm sure lots of people drive at 120km/h, or more, that seems to be the will of the people, instead of having the common right to do that, we have POLICy Enforcers, threatening us with tasers and glocks to comply with the statute law, and only travel at 100km/h


here's a bouviers law dictionary:
"COMMON LAW. That which derives its force and authority from the universal
consent and immemorial practice of the people."



what an insurance company chooses to do in any given circumstance is up to them, it was a simple fact that legally (by legislation) a private contract cannot overrule or superceed the legislation applicable to the jurisdiction under which it was made.

with me champ? grab a law dictionary and sift through legislation.govt.nz, you may surprise yourself.
and if you're interested, check out http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/thema...timebomb.shtml - the govt that's issuing this legislation and enFORCE-ing it on us, is actually illegal.

If you simply substitute "legislation" for "common law" in my post, I think you'll find it's still correct, Poindextor.

And if you would like to rest your right hand from its Oananist duties for a minute, you might want to actually skin up a contract of insurance that actually contracts or attempts to contract out of traffic laws (or you could STFU).

You see, Champ, ignoring the fact that a car has no warrant to pay a claim has nothing whatsoever to do with any legislation. The average car insurance policy only stipulates that the vehicle must be "roadworthy".

[Oscar]

a big negative buddy.
common, as defined in a blacks' law dictionary (the kind that they use when writing legislation), is defined as having the UNIVERSAL ASSENT of the people.

the legislation that the monkeys in the beehive pump out is not common law, it is statute law, or legislation.
for one, it does not have MY consent OR assent. for twosies, i'm sure lots of people drive at 120km/h, or more, that seems to be the will of the people, instead of having the common right to do that, we have POLICy Enforcers, threatening us with tasers and glocks to comply with the statute law, and only travel at 100km/h


here's a bouviers law dictionary:
"COMMON LAW. That which derives its force and authority from the universal
consent and immemorial practice of the people."



what an insurance company chooses to do in any given circumstance is up to them, it was a simple fact that legally (by legislation) a private contract cannot overrule or superceed the legislation applicable to the jurisdiction under which it was made.

with me champ? grab a law dictionary and sift through legislation.govt.nz, you may surprise yourself.
and if you're interested, check out http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/thema...timebomb.shtml - the govt that's issuing this legislation and enFORCE-ing it on us, is actually illegal.

Ps. I fully understand why people may be threatening you with Tasers and Glocks. And I'm so concerned that you don't consent to statute law.

[Asher]

a big negative buddy.
common, as defined in a blacks' law dictionary (the kind that they use when writing legislation), is defined as having the UNIVERSAL ASSENT of the people.

the legislation that the monkeys in the beehive pump out is not common law, it is statute law, or legislation.
for one, it does not have MY consent OR assent. for twosies, i'm sure lots of people drive at 120km/h, or more, that seems to be the will of the people, instead of having the common right to do that, we have POLICy Enforcers, threatening us with tasers and glocks to comply with the statute law, and only travel at 100km/h


here's a bouviers law dictionary:
"COMMON LAW. That which derives its force and authority from the universal
consent and immemorial practice of the people."



what an insurance company chooses to do in any given circumstance is up to them, it was a simple fact that legally (by legislation) a private contract cannot overrule or superceed the legislation applicable to the jurisdiction under which it was made.

with me champ? grab a law dictionary and sift through legislation.govt.nz, you may surprise yourself.
and if you're interested, check out http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/thema...timebomb.shtml - the govt that's issuing this legislation and enFORCE-ing it on us, is actually illegal.

I would argue that since the "monkeys" are elected they have your consent.

[Oscar]

I would argue that since the "monkeys" are elected they have your consent.

I'd warrant that Mr. Green Ink don't vote.
It's easier to blame everyone else that way...(either that or he isn't allowed in the voting booth with his tinfoil hat on).

[Akzle]

I'd warrant that Mr. Green Ink don't vote.
It's easier to blame everyone else that way...(either that or he isn't allowed in the voting booth with his tinfoil hat on).

ahh. easier to sink to that that try justifying your own position ehh.

generally a no to everyone else aswell. and if you substitute "legislation" for "common law" then you end up in a "dictatorship"

i take 100% responsibility for my actions and omissions. it's a shame that everyone else doesn't too. then them monkeys could work on cranking out shakespeare rather than statute.

and you're right, i don't vote, because i'm happy to make decisions for myself and sure as shirt don't trust any of the politicians to make them for me. why would i give that common right to someone else? when they put a "hang the lot of the f*ckers" tickbox, then i will vote.

regardless of if you were in court, i suspect you had no idea what was actually happening there. you may have witnessed the process, you may know the verdicts, but i suggest the whys and wherefores are beyond you.

and it's not a "tinfoil hat" it's an aluminum foil deflector beanie!!! there's science to it you know!

[Latte]

* Thread to watch...

[onearmedbandit]

[Fast Eddie]

lol

[Pussy]

Do you sell ice creams?

I'll bet he does.......

[CookMySock]

Er - you've got the wrong end of the stick here.
There is nothing in a contract of insurance that over-rides common law (and besides, your argument is somewhat contradicted by the fact that the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977 is common law). The insurance contract doesn't specifically state that it will ignore the Road Traffic Act, and the fact that insurers sometimes pay in instances where that act has been broken is not illegal.

Whut? The laws of contract, tort, etc are the whole basis of common law, and statutes of parliament are tantamount to "rules that we pulled out of our arse".

Kindly quote your sources.

Connotation 1 distinguishes the authority that promulgated a law. For example, most areas of law in most Anglo-American jurisdictions include "statutory law" enacted by a legislature, "regulatory law" promulgated by executive branch agencies pursuant to delegation of rule-making authority from the legislature, and common law or "case law", i.e., decisions issued by courts (or quasi-judicial tribunals within agencies).[10][11] This first connotation can be further differentiated into (a) pure common law arising from the traditional and inherent authority of courts to define what the law is, even in absence of an underlying statute, e.g., most criminal law and procedural law before the 20th century, and even today, most of contract law and the law of torts, and (b) court decisions that interpret and decide the fine boundaries and distinctions in law promulgated by other bodies. This body of common law, sometimes called "interstitial common law," includes judicial interpretations of the Constitution, of statutes, and of regulations, and examples of application of law to facts.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_...regulatory_law

[CookMySock]

I would argue that since the "monkeys" are elected they have your consent.

And that is the problem in a nutshell.

[nodrog:Me]

And that is the problem in a nutshell.

Oh fuck off knobjockey.