'Debt Collector'

bigneacy · 05-02-2012 6:34pm #1

Hi,

I am having an issue at the moment with a pseudo debt collector.

A few years back I opened a business, the business was part funded by a private investor who was to remain a silent partner. It was for a small sum - €5000. It was all very informally done - deal done on a handshake so to speak - no paperwork or the likes - I gave him a photocopy of my passport and statement of my home address to give him the reassurance. We had great hopes for the business and the future - wanted to make our fortunes - there was informal mentions of 25% ownership, hoped to double his money in a few months - the usual.

The business went south after a short while and was wound up amid some possible legal proceedings with a third party. The investor was informed of this and as far as i was concerned - cut his losses. In the meantime I signed up to a new phone contract and have changed my number.

I got an email two days ago from a amateurish email address along the lines of debtcollector1234 @ gmail.com. Saying in relation to the debt i owe of 10,000 to call a mobile number to make arrangements, "If you ignore this request our agents will pay you a visit. You have 48 hours to make contact on the number above, We have your home address and the your parents home address. If contact is not made in this time an agent will be called to these addresses.
Thank You"

Now, the address I was living at at the time of the deal is a different one to where I now live. My parents address is also different. This evening my brother gets a phonecall where a man, who would only give his first name, told him his number was very easy to find and advising that he could do this the easy way or the hard way.

My brother asked was that a threat - he said he has never threatened anyone in his life. My brother asked him several times where he got his number - he wouldn't answer, asked for his name- wouldn't give it. Asked for the company he worked for - wouldn't give it.

He openly discussed the details (details which he should never have had in the first place) of my 'debt' to my brother over the phone.

So I have a few questions

1. Do I owe a debt?
2. Do debt collectors have a legal standing in Ireland? If so, are they licensed in any way?
3. I haven't made contact back as of yet - should I do so, or just ignore?
4. What should be my next move? Solictor?
5. What should I do if phonecalls to my brother or other relatives persist?
6. What should I do if the 'debt collector' shows up on my doorstep?

drunkmonkey · 05-02-2012 6:42pm

You burned someone of €5,000 of course you owe a debt. Make contact with the person who lent you the money and see can you work out something with them. Get legal advice after you've been in contact with the investor.

Stercus Accidit · 05-02-2012 6:50pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You burned someone of €5,000 of course you owe a debt. Make contact with the person who lent you the money and see can you work out something with them. Get legal advice after you've been in contact with the investor.

The investor wanted 25% of the business which failed, this wasn't a lend of money, I doubt that they could get their money back, that's the nature of a failed investment.

drunkmonkey · 05-02-2012 6:58pm

Sounds like it was a straight forward loan of money. Lender would be entitled to chase it, might not get anywhere but still within his rights.

Email and all that is dodgy, might not even be the investor, still think its worth contacting them to find out is everything ok. I dont see how he agreed to cut his losses and then decides to chase it up after a few years. Something missing in the picture.

bigneacy · 05-02-2012 7:09pm

My main point is that he didn't lend me money - we never drew up any lending agreements or repayment plans. He stayed in contact over the course of the business to see how things were going, offering advice etc. certainly not in a money lenders capacity.

But he is now demanding 10,000 - its not like I have the money anyway but if it is a case of I truly owe him the money then i'll draw up a repayment plan, but it was a failed investment - my understanding is that this would indicate no debt is owed.

As to why he is chasing it now I can see by a search online that he is selling off assets (boats etc.) so that may give some indication as to why he has chosen to chase the money now.

I did some googling of the debt collector - He was a roofer/tiler up until December, sold his car, he then had an ad posted looking for an investor in a business "5k for 30%" then he had some free ads up for debt collection services.

OldmanMondeo · 05-02-2012 7:15pm

Investor or Loan Shark? sounds like the latter. If it was me I would pass this to the Gardai and let them deal with it.

drunkmonkey · 05-02-2012 7:19pm

Without any proof of any contract etc he'd have a very hard time proving you owe what is claimed or even proving he gave it to you in court. Did he give you cash or was it a bank transfer / cheque?
Either way i'd contact a solicitor for some legal advice. It was an unsecured investment, he hasn't much to go on.

bigneacy · 05-02-2012 7:19pm

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

Investor or Loan Shark? sounds like the latter. If it was me I would pass this to the Gardai and let them deal with it.

He always represented himself to me as an investor - but I do see your point. I can't imagine the Gardai would be able to do much as at the moment its very much so a civil matter - no actual threats have been made...?

drunkmonkey · 05-02-2012 7:20pm

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

Investor or Loan Shark? sounds like the latter. If it was me I would pass this to the Gardai and let them deal with it.

I'd say they would view that as a civil matter not a criminal one.

bigneacy · 05-02-2012 7:21pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Without any proof of any contract etc he'd have a very hard time proving you owe what is claimed or even proving he gave it to you in court. Did he give you cash or was it a bank transfer / cheque?
Either way i'd contact a solicitor for some legal advice. It was an unsecured investment, he hasn't much to go on.

Cash - the only thing he has would be the passport photocopy and proof of address - also some email correspondence back after the business failed regarding the investment.

I think i'll go to the solicitor and see what I should do - just wanted to get you guys opinion on things.

opti76 · 05-02-2012 7:22pm

Demands for payment of debt causing alarm, etc.

11.—(1) A person who makes any demand for payment of a debt shall be guilty of an offence if—

(a) the demands by reason of their frequency are calculated to subject the debtor or a member of the family of the debtor to alarm, distress or humiliation, or

(b) the person falsely represents that criminal proceedings lie for non-payment of the debt, or

(c) the person falsely represents that he or she is authorised in some official capacity to enforce payment, or

(d) the person utters a document falsely represented to have an official character.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €1,500

just make sure he plays by the rules..

ResearchWill · 05-02-2012 8:12pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You burned someone of €5,000 of course you owe a debt. Make contact with the person who lent you the money and see can you work out something with them. Get legal advice after you've been in contact with the investor.

Really bad advice. You do not know if this was in fact a loan, if it was a loan you have no idea if the loan is over 6 years old. If the person contacts the person claiming money is owed and says yes I owe you money and will pay you, he starts the statute running again.

My advice is go to a solicitor and give all information and get proper legal opinion. As an aside I would think that as the investor/lender took a copy of your passport it sounds more like a loan. But if you take any advice on here other than seek out a solicitor or FLAC, you will end up regretting it.

mathepac · 05-02-2012 9:01pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Sounds like it was a straight forward loan of money. Lender would be entitled to chase it, might not get anywhere but still within his rights. ...

I disagree. We only have one side of the story (no disrespect to OP) but based on the information posted it was clearly not a loan but a business investment with all the attendant risks. No-one got "burned" as you so dramatically describe it.

MagicSean · 05-02-2012 9:38pm

If it was a loan of 5k then he would not be entitled to 10k back. So either it was a loan, in which case he could look for the 5k back or it was an investment, in which case he expected 10k but is guaranteed nothing. The op hasn't mentioned if it was a limited company or not but I expect he was a sole trader. In any case the investor would be entitled to his share of what was left when the business closed.

If someone is threatening your family then record all instances in detail and report it to the Gardaí.

Delancey · 06-02-2012 1:26am

A ' partner ' , silent or otherwise would be expected to invest in a start-up business as opposed to making a loan.
Sounds like an investment that failed and he should put it down to experience , possibly this ' investor ' has financial worries of his own now and is chancing his arm ?
Legal advice ( not from boards.ie ) would be a wise move.

pirelli · 06-02-2012 3:22am

bigneacy wrote: »

Hi,

I am having an issue at the moment with a pseudo debt collector.

A few years back I opened a business, the business was part funded by a private investor who was to remain a silent partner. It was for a small sum - €5000. It was all very informally done - deal done on a handshake so to speak - no paperwork or the likes - I gave him a photocopy of my passport and statement of my home address to give him the reassurance. We had great hopes for the business and the future - wanted to make our fortunes - there was informal mentions of 25% ownership, hoped to double his money in a few months - the usual.

The business went south after a short while and was wound up amid some possible legal proceedings with a third party. The investor was informed of this and as far as i was concerned - cut his losses. In the meantime I signed up to a new phone contract and have changed my number.

I got an email two days ago from a amateurish email address along the lines of debtcollector1234 @ gmail.com. Saying in relation to the debt i owe of 10,000 to call a mobile number to make arrangements, "If you ignore this request our agents will pay you a visit. You have 48 hours to make contact on the number above, We have your home address and the your parents home address. If contact is not made in this time an agent will be called to these addresses.
Thank You"

Now, the address I was living at at the time of the deal is a different one to where I now live. My parents address is also different. This evening my brother gets a phonecall where a man, who would only give his first name, told him his number was very easy to find and advising that he could do this the easy way or the hard way.

My brother asked was that a threat - he said he has never threatened anyone in his life. My brother asked him several times where he got his number - he wouldn't answer, asked for his name- wouldn't give it. Asked for the company he worked for - wouldn't give it.

He openly discussed the details (details which he should never have had in the first place) of my 'debt' to my brother over the phone.

So I have a few questions

1. Do I owe a debt?
2. Do debt collectors have a legal standing in Ireland? If so, are they licensed in any way?
3. I haven't made contact back as of yet - should I do so, or just ignore?
4. What should be my next move? Solictor?
5. What should I do if phonecalls to my brother or other relatives persist?
6. What should I do if the 'debt collector' shows up on my doorstep?

If the person is asking for 10,000 then he might be under the impression you were going to return twice what he loaned/invested with you. It would then be more likely an investment...your might be liable. The sad thing about people like you however is he helps you out and despite you being morally and perhaps legally wrong he has to chase you through the courts.

Neither of you have any documentation explaining what the transaction involved. Your neither morally nor legally right. When you informed your 'silent investor' that the business failed, and you were broke does that mean he can never collect on his money. Are you being irresponsible?

It is no more an investment than it is a loan. There are strict rules surrounding investments, you can not promise to double someone's money that revenues will be spectacular and that the risk is minimal when the opposite is the reality.

If a publicly traded company told its shareholders that next quarter would double due to huge sales and a new merger etc the next quarter is miserable and sales fell through and their merger was never signed in as promised then they are potentially liable to compensate their shareholders. You cannot mislead an investor.

You want him to sue you for his money!! You might consider giving the person 2,500 back.

Here is an excellent example of how careful you must be in business..enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A3j2tLToYQ

PARKHEAD67 · 06-02-2012 3:37am

bigneacy wrote: »

He always represented himself to me as an investor - but I do see your point. I can't imagine the Gardai would be able to do much as at the moment its very much so a civil matter - no actual threats have been made...?

Gardai:P.Dont want to be waking them guys up.

Ken. · 06-02-2012 3:41am

pirelli wrote: »

If the person is asking for 10,000 then he might be under the impression you were going to return twice what he loaned/invested with you. It would then be more likely an investment...your might be liable. The sad thing about people like you however is he helps you out and despite you being morally and perhaps legally wrong he has to chase you through the courts.

Neither of you have any documentation explaining what the transaction involved. Your neither morally nor legally right. When you informed your 'silent investor' that the business failed, and you were broke does that mean he can never collect on his money. Are you being irresponsible?

It is no more an investment than it is a loan. There are strict rules surrounding investments, you can not promise to double someone's money that revenues will be spectacular and that the risk is minimal when the opposite is the reality.

If a publicly traded company told its shareholders that next quarter would double due to huge sales and a new merger etc the next quarter is miserable and sales fell through and their merger was never signed in as promised then they are potentially liable to compensate their shareholders. You cannot mislead an investor.

You want him to sue you for his money!! You might consider giving the person 2,500 back.

Here is an excellent example of how careful you must be in business..enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A3j2tLToYQ

What has an American case about allegedly fraudulently selling something to someone got to do with Irish law and more particularly the o.p's situation?

ResearchWill · 06-02-2012 10:51am

pirelli wrote: »

If the person is asking for 10,000 then he might be under the impression you were going to return twice what he loaned/invested with you. It would then be more likely an investment...your might be liable. The sad thing about people like you however is he helps you out and despite you being morally and perhaps legally wrong he has to chase you through the courts.

Neither of you have any documentation explaining what the transaction involved. Your neither morally nor legally right. When you informed your 'silent investor' that the business failed, and you were broke does that mean he can never collect on his money. Are you being irresponsible?

It is no more an investment than it is a loan. There are strict rules surrounding investments, you can not promise to double someone's money that revenues will be spectacular and that the risk is minimal when the opposite is the reality.

If a publicly traded company told its shareholders that next quarter would double due to huge sales and a new merger etc the next quarter is miserable and sales fell through and their merger was never signed in as promised then they are potentially liable to compensate their shareholders. You cannot mislead an investor.

You want him to sue you for his money!! You might consider giving the person 2,500 back.

Here is an excellent example of how careful you must be in business..enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A3j2tLToYQ

How can you say it sounds like an investment, and then say the OP owes the money. The very definition of an investment is that if the business fails you lose your money. If I buy €5000 in shares and in a few years the business fails I lose my investment. The person who set up the company owes me nothing.

MagicSean · 06-02-2012 11:50am

ResearchWill wrote: »

How can you say it sounds like an investment, and then say the OP owes the money. The very definition of an investment is that if the business fails you lose your money. If I buy €5000 in shares and in a few years the business fails I lose my investment. The person who set up the company owes me nothing.

If you invest €5000 in shares in a business you own that portion of the business and if it is wound up and there is money left over you are entitled to your proportional share of what is remaining.

ResearchWill · 06-02-2012 11:58am

MagicSean wrote: »

If you invest €5000 in shares in a business you own that portion of the business and if it is wound up and there is money left over you are entitled to your proportional share of what is remaining.

I agree, but I am assuming there was nothing left over, there is also no evidence this was a limited liability company but a partnership. While the person may have rights, a blanket statement with no facts to agree to pay any amount, is bad advice.

Ken. · 06-02-2012 12:01pm

MagicSean wrote: »

If you invest €5000 in shares in a business you own that portion of the business and if it is wound up and there is money left over you are entitled to your proportional share of what is remaining.

In your scenario lets say €5000 gets you 25% of a business. Is the investor liable for 25% of debts when the business goes belly up.

MagicSean · 06-02-2012 12:09pm

lucyfur09 wrote: »

In your scenario lets say €5000 gets you 25% of a business. Is the investor liable for 25% of debts when the business goes belly up.

I'm not really to good on company law but my understanding is that if the op was operating as a sole trader with a silent partner then the partner would also be liable for debts.

pirelli · 06-02-2012 7:49pm

lucyfur09 wrote: »

What has an American case about allegedly fraudulently selling something to someone got to do with Irish law and more particularly the o.p's situation?

It shows the importance of Written contracts and it's a very common and basic law and just not an American one. So it is relevant.

ResearchWill wrote: »

How can you say it sounds like an investment, and then say the OP owes the money. The very definition of an investment is that if the business fails you lose your money. If I buy €5000 in shares and in a few years the business fails I lose my investment. The person who set up the company owes me nothing.

Because there is no written contract it could be anything. It could be a hybrid loan/Investment. An investor can set any terms he wishes. Should the business fail as Magic Sean stated he could be the first to get his money back before all creditors including this third party that they entered into litigation with.

An investor may place themselves in a much better position than someone who loans money if they set out terms and conditions. Also if the investor was misled then then the business would be liable.

ResearchWill wrote: »

I agree, but I am assuming there was nothing left over, there is also no evidence this was a limited liability company but a partnership. While the person may have rights, a blanket statement with no facts to agree to pay any amount, is bad advice.

The investor could claim he was entitled to be paid before all other creditors. Failing that he could likely say he was mislead by the business which gave him assurances and claimed securities they never had.

Typically Irish to shaft layman investors. They form an important part of small business and should be better represented. The purpose of the Judge Judy is to highlight the universal importance of a written contract/agreement of some kind.

ResearchWill · 06-02-2012 8:14pm

pirelli wrote: »

It shows the importance of Written contracts and it's a very common and basic law and just not an American one. So it is relevant.

Because there is no written contract it could be anything. It could be a hybrid loan/Investment. An investor can set any terms he wishes. Should the business fail as Magic Sean stated he could be the first to get his money back before all creditors including this third party that they entered into litigation with.

An investor may place themselves in a much better position than someone who loans money if they set out terms and conditions. Also if the investor was misled then then the business would be liable.

The investor could claim he was entitled to be paid before all other creditors. Failing that he could likely say he was mislead by the business which gave him assurances and claimed securities they never had.

Typically Irish to shaft layman investors. They form an important part of small business and should be better represented. The purpose of the Judge Judy is to highlight the universal importance of a written contract/agreement of some kind.

There is no legal need to have a written contract, the old adage a verbal contract is not worth the paper it is written on is just that an old adage, it has no basis in law. The courts on a daily basis deal with verbal contracts, you ask how do the do that it's simple it's called verbal evidence.

In this case as the lender/investor did not bother to do anything to secure his investment/loan, then in my opinion the courts are more likely to say it was an risky investment.

In company law the shareholders are not paid first they are paid last after everyone else. A secured bond holder would be paid first as his bond is secured on a specific asset. Other than that if you invest in a company any buy 25% that implies you are a shareholder and as such can sing for your money if investment goes. If on the other hand it was 25% of a non limited liability business then you are in a partnership and not only can lose your investment but could be liable for losses. If the person on the other hand says it was a loan of €5000 with €10,000 to be repaid in say 1 year, that may be illegal money lending as the interest rate is over 23%. There are many things this €5000 could be and no one here is in any position to tell the OP to either pay it back or not.

I agree about paperwork as it avoids confusion, but there is nothing stoping either party going to court and telling the court what they believed they agreed and then the court decides.

As an aside to use judge Judy to back up a legal argument is akin to using Wikipedia to further an argument. If you had just done a simple google search you could have found any number of legal cases before real courts that would have said that.

Also to make the statement that the OP shafted an investor, without any evidence of same, is unfair to the OP.

pirelli · 06-02-2012 8:58pm

ResearchWill wrote: »

There is no legal need to have a written contract, the old adage a verbal contract is not worth the paper it is written on is just that an old adage, it has no basis in law. The courts on a daily basis deal with verbal contracts, you ask how do the do that it's simple it's called verbal evidence.

In this case as the lender/investor did not bother to do anything to secure his investment/loan, then in my opinion the courts are more likely to say it was an risky investment.

In company law the shareholders are not paid first they are paid last after everyone else. A secured bond holder would be paid first as his bond is secured on a specific asset. Other than that if you invest in a company any buy 25% that implies you are a shareholder and as such can sing for your money if investment goes. If on the other hand it was 25% of a non limited liability business then you are in a partnership and not only can lose your investment but could be liable for losses. If the person on the other hand says it was a loan of €5000 with €10,000 to be repaid in say 1 year, that may be illegal money lending as the interest rate is over 23%. There are many things this €5000 could be and no one here is in any position to tell the OP to either pay it back or not.

I agree about paperwork as it avoids confusion, but there is nothing stoping either party going to court and telling the court what they believed they agreed and then the court decides.

As an aside to use judge Judy to back up a legal argument is akin to using Wikipedia to further an argument. If you had just done a simple google search you could have found any number of legal cases before real courts that would have said that.

Also to make the statement that the OP shafted an investor, without any evidence of same, is unfair to the OP.

Wikipedia has no qualifications whilst Judge Judy is a person who not only practised law but was appointed a Judge on such matters and if the man in this scenario had a contract he would have won, either way he was not an investor but a buyer. What did term did u use in Google to get all of these cases.

Also this person is not a shareholder, this company is not issuing shares. His position while risky is different than that of a shareholder.

I think the facts we have been given are far too vague to be scrolling and literally guessing at the relevance of cases. You loss someone's money then your not the exactly the good guy, why are we even helping someone who does not even understand what he is doing with other peoples money other than to lose it.

What search term did you use Researchwill because I can't find anything on Google. Maybe UCC i might be able to find something but not Google.

I am entitled to my opinion and OP should return some of this person's money if he and it sounds like he might have mislead the investor and i am not assuming the person who stupidly gave him 5000 euro may be the person making this i inappropriate contact but could be one of many people including the litigant or creditors that the OP owes money too.

Offy · 06-02-2012 10:20pm

pirelli wrote: »

I am entitled to my opinion and OP should return some of this person's money if he and it sounds like he might have mislead the investor and i am not assuming the person who stupidly gave him 5000 euro may be the person making this i inappropriate contact but could be one of many people including the litigant or creditors that the OP owes money too.

As someone who was a company director of a company that failed I can speak from personal experience. One of my directors also invested €5k. He received shares for this. When the company failed there was no assets. He completely lost his €5k. The interesting thing is the company failed largely in part because the investor lied on his CV. He claimed to have financial expertise in three start-up. It turned out he never did the books for any of the start-up, he was a salesman and knew very little about taxes, loans, wages, etc.
I dont think a link to Judge Judy has any relevance to this thread, this is Ireland and not America, different countries and different laws. You are entitled to an opinion but that doesnt mean your opinion is correct.

ResearchWill · 06-02-2012 10:20pm

pirelli wrote: »

Wikipedia has no qualifications whilst Judge Judy is a person who not only practised law but was appointed a Judge on such matters and if the man in this scenario had a contract he would have won, either way he was not an investor but a buyer. What did term did u use in Google to get all of these cases.

Also this person is not a shareholder, this company is not issuing shares. His position while risky is different than that of a shareholder.

I think the facts we have been given are far too vague to be scrolling and literally guessing at the relevance of cases. You loss someone's money then your not the exactly the good guy, why are we even helping someone who does not even understand what he is doing with other peoples money other than to lose it.

What search term did you use Researchwill because I can't find anything on Google. Maybe UCC i might be able to find something but not Google.

I am entitled to my opinion and OP should return some of this person's money if he and it sounds like he might have mislead the investor and i am not assuming the person who stupidly gave him 5000 euro may be the person making this i inappropriate contact but could be one of many people including the litigant or creditors that the OP owes money too.

Your statement that a person who loses someone's money is not exactly a good guy astounds me, I take as you admit you know not what the facts are that all business people who have had a failed business are in someway bad people, just really surprises me.

I'm relation toy support for the OP I have never said the OP is right or wrong guess why because I do not know, yes you are entitled to your opinion, but the OP did not ask for opinions he asked for advice you advised him to pay 2500 with out any facts, I advised to go speak to a solicitor and tell him everything and then follow that advice. If the solicitor says you owe the money then do what any decent person should do pay it, if on the other hand he does not owe the money the OP does not deserve to be treated on the manner he is.

On Oral contracts a google search threw up the following http://www.financialombudsman.ie/case-studies/judgements/A22-LYONS-MURRAY-BOSI-HoganJ-13Dec11-47801.pdf

You could also use first law or justis or courts.ie which would be way better than Judge Judy. Yes judge Judy is a Attorney in the US and has been apointment to a low level judicial appointment, in criminal court and family court (i believe but could be corrected)after working as a prosecutor in New York, that does in no way make her an expert in contract law.

The only point I have made here is that with out the real facts noone here or undead any lawyer can tell the OP where he stands.

BTW a good case about verbal contracts was the Pernod Ricard take over of Irish distillers good example of oral contract standing.

jblack · 07-02-2012 12:29am

Verbal may mean written as well as oral.

ResearchWill · 07-02-2012 1:03am

jblack wrote: »

Verbal may mean written as well as oral.

To be clear if I stated verbal I mean non written communication. In the Pernod case an agreement was orally entered into between Flavin and Desmond, that Flavin would sell shares in Irish Distilers for £4.50 I think. This was agreed face to face no written record of the agreement existed or was made the only communication was verbal. Then Grand Met I think offered over £5 a share and DCC tried to pull out of the deal. The SC stated that the original oral non written deal stuck.

If the SC say that it's good enough for Dermot Desmond to enter into a contract by oral means only then I personally think Judge Judy can take a jump. That oral contract was one of the most important contracts in Irish merger history as it gave the control of Irish Distilers to Pernod Ricard.

pirelli · 07-02-2012 1:41am

ResearchWill wrote: »

Your statement that a person who loses someone's money is not exactly a good guy astounds me, I take as you admit you know not what the facts are that all business people who have had a failed business are in someway bad people, just really surprises me.

I'm relation toy support for the OP I have never said the OP is right or wrong guess why because I do not know, yes you are entitled to your opinion, but the OP did not ask for opinions he asked for advice you advised him to pay 2500 with out any facts, I advised to go speak to a solicitor and tell him everything and then follow that advice. If the solicitor says you owe the money then do what any decent person should do pay it, if on the other hand he does not owe the money the OP does not deserve to be treated on the manner he is.

On Oral contracts a google search threw up the following http://www.financialombudsman.ie/case-studies/judgements/A22-LYONS-MURRAY-BOSI-HoganJ-13Dec11-47801.pdf

You could also use first law or justis or courts.ie which would be way better than Judge Judy. Yes judge Judy is a Attorney in the US and has been apointment to a low level judicial appointment, in criminal court and family court (i believe but could be corrected)after working as a prosecutor in New York, that does in no way make her an expert in contract law.

The only point I have made here is that with out the real facts noone here or undead any lawyer can tell the OP where he stands.

BTW a good case about verbal contracts was the Pernod Ricard take over of Irish distillers good example of oral contract standing.

You must have done a background on Judge Judy, while she is in your words a low level judicial appointment and not a supreme court judge, you might have underestimated her judgement in this matter. Refer to post below.

ResearchWill wrote: »

To be clear if I stated verbal I mean non written communication. In the Pernod case an agreement was orally entered into between Flavin and Desmond, that Flavin would sell shares in Irish Distilers for £4.50 I think. This was agreed face to face no written record of the agreement existed or was made the only communication was verbal. Then Grand Met I think offered over £5 a share and DCC tried to pull out of the deal. The SC stated that the original oral non written deal stuck.

If the SC say that it's good enough for Dermot Desmond to enter into a contract by oral means only then I personally think Judge Judy can take a jump. That oral contract was one of the most important contracts in Irish merger history as it gave the control of Irish Distilers to Pernod Ricard.

That is exactly the finding Judge Judy made. May i write that again....Judge Judy identical finding.

She jumps like a tiger and stings like a bee, you and your supreme court merely meet the basic level of of her appointment. How did Flavin and DCC possibly reach the supreme court, sounds like a legal rip off. Judge Judy any day much more cost effective...

Just as in Judge Judy an offer was made and was accepted end of case.
No wonder you guys end up in the supreme court when you cannot even understand Judge Judy.

Tsk Tsk 'Jump in a lake' You wouldn't last five minutes with her with that attitude sir. Come back when your a judge.

All hail Judge Judy

blueythebear · 07-02-2012 1:58am

pirelli wrote: »

You must have done a background on Judge Judy, while she is in your words a low level judicial appointment and not a supreme court judge, you might have underestimated her judgement in this matter. Refer to post below.

That is exactly the finding Judge Judy made. May i write that again....Judge Judy identical finding.

She jumps like a tiger and stings like a bee, you and your supreme court merely meet the basic level of of her appointment. How did Flavin and DCC possibly reach the supreme court, sounds like a legal rip off. Judge Judy any day much more cost effective...

Just as in Judge Judy an offer was made and was accepted end of case.
No wonder you guys end up in the supreme court when you cannot even understand Judge Judy.

Tsk Tsk 'Jump in a lake' You wouldn't last five minutes with her with that attitude sir. Come back when your a judge.

All hail Judge Judy

While I know the above post is tongue in cheek....

I'm pretty sure that Judge Judy and the like, while appearing as courtrooms, they are actually arbitrations with Judge Judy being more accurately described as an arbitrator (although no arbitrator would actually talk to the parties as she does).

Anyway, there is no application of law so that Judge Judy's relevance to any legal question is zero.

pirelli · 07-02-2012 2:23am

blueythebear wrote: »

While I know the above post is tongue in cheek....

I'm pretty sure that Judge Judy and the like, while appearing as courtrooms, they are actually arbitrations with Judge Judy being more accurately described as an arbitrator (although no arbitrator would actually talk to the parties as she does).

Anyway, there is no application of law so that Judge Judy's relevance to any legal question is zero.

Arbitration Agreement: "The Arbitrator's Decision (That's Judge Judy's Decision) and her interpretation and application of laws and principles she uses in arriving at the Decision, shall be final and binding upon the parties.

Judge Judy uses her interpretation and application of laws in making a decision. So her decision will likely be an application of the law.

Tongue in cheek perhaps and I am not any where near as qualified as you guy's so I turn to Judge Judy to arbitrate for me. So be shrewd in your criticism's.

Hence forth i shall post Judge Judy videos to better explain a solution to a legal problem as i see it.

Procrastastudy · 07-02-2012 2:29am

I LOVE that show!

blueythebear · 07-02-2012 2:30am

pirelli wrote: »

Arbitration Agreement: "The Arbitrator's Decision (That's Judge Judy's Decision) and her interpretation and application of laws and principles she uses in arriving at the Decision, shall be final and binding upon the parties.

Judge Judy uses her interpretation and application of laws in making a decision. So her decision will likely be an application of the law.

Tongue in cheek perhaps and I am not any where near as qualified as you guy's so I turn to Judge Judy to arbitrate for me. So be shrewd in your criticism's.

Hence forth i shall post Judge Judy videos to better explain a solution to a legal problem as i see it.

That's one idea...Or you could use a valid source of knowledge. A single source with the answer to every potential problem.

The Simpsons.There is no situation or problem that cannot be explained through the medium of quoting the Simpsons.

drunkmonkey · 07-02-2012 2:35am

ResearchWill wrote: »

Your statement that a person who loses someone's money is not exactly a good guy astounds me

Will in the OP's opening statement it sounded like he made an assumption that the investors accepted he lost all his investment. It in no way sounded like everything was wound up properly and if there was some money to be made from the sale of assets did the investor see any of it. He also changed his phone number which suggests he was trying to dodge someone.
I'm not saying OP is a bad guy, he has said he'll get in contact and see is everything ok and has also said he will try and make some kind of payback to the investor if required. He sounds like he wants to make a mends. There all traits of a good guy who might have just got things a little wrong in the past but is willing to make things good again.

pirelli · 07-02-2012 2:52am

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Will in the OP's opening statement it sounded like he made an assumption that the investors accepted he lost all his investment. It in no way sounded like everything was wound up properly and if there was some money to be made from the sale of assets did the investor see any of it. He also changed his phone number which suggests he was trying to dodge someone.
I'm not saying OP is a bad guy, he has said he'll get in contact and see is everything ok and has also said he will try and make some kind of payback to the investor if required. He sounds like he wants to make a mends. There all traits of a good guy who might have just got things a little wrong in the past but is willing to make things good again.

Good post!

although op says 'If required to '... required by whom and what? by the investor?!
Rather something compelling him to.

pirelli · 07-02-2012 2:55am

blueythebear wrote: »

That's one idea...Or you could use a valid source of knowledge. A single source with the answer to every potential problem.

The Simpsons.There is no situation or problem that cannot be explained through the medium of quoting the Simpsons.

Troy McClure: Don’t kid yourself, Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he’d eat you and everyone you care about!

ResearchWill · 07-02-2012 9:39am

pirelli wrote: »

You must have done a background on Judge Judy, while she is in your words a low level judicial appointment and not a supreme court judge, you might have underestimated her judgement in this matter. Refer to post below.

That is exactly the finding Judge Judy made. May i write that again....Judge Judy identical finding.

She jumps like a tiger and stings like a bee, you and your supreme court merely meet the basic level of of her appointment. How did Flavin and DCC possibly reach the supreme court, sounds like a legal rip off. Judge Judy any day much more cost effective...

Just as in Judge Judy an offer was made and was accepted end of case.
No wonder you guys end up in the supreme court when you cannot even understand Judge Judy.

Tsk Tsk 'Jump in a lake' You wouldn't last five minutes with her with that attitude sir. Come back when your a judge.

All hail Judge Judy

From my understanding of The Judge Judy case it was an attack on a lawyer. She in my opinion said that there was a contract to sell a fake rug, no court should stand over any contract written or otherwise that is a fraud. It was and is bad law. She shows her self to be a bully and if that is her interpretation of law a bad judge. I would also guess Judge Judy earns more than any suprem court judge in Ireland. While she is entertaining, it is not law.

Now I have show I could last 5 mins with Judge Judy, her decision is flawed in any court it was an unveiled attack on a lawyer to sink to the lowest level. I have not insulted you to date I have attacked the post not the poster. Well gloves off I have seen you post the most stupid rubbish on this forum, you have given advice which is against forum charter and are as thick as bat crap. You have posted a judge Judy clip to back up what argument I don't know in fact the Judge Judy clip goes against the advice you gave the OP according to Judge Judy if the OP defrauded the investor/lender is does not matter there was a contract. Please in future if you are giving advice please please make sure you have all the facts and that the advice is good. Now start your rant about lawyers of you wish at least I have the balls to ID my profession.

So as you said, you would not last 5 mins in front of me at least I have run cases in the HC and SC which courts have you ran a case in just asking.

ResearchWill · 07-02-2012 9:44am

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Will in the OP's opening statement it sounded like he made an assumption that the investors accepted he lost all his investment. It in no way sounded like everything was wound up properly and if there was some money to be made from the sale of assets did the investor see any of it. He also changed his phone number which suggests he was trying to dodge someone.
I'm not saying OP is a bad guy, he has said he'll get in contact and see is everything ok and has also said he will try and make some kind of payback to the investor if required. He sounds like he wants to make a mends. There all traits of a good guy who might have just got things a little wrong in the past but is willing to make things good again.

The reason I was astounded which was clear from my full post, was the poster in my opinion was stating any person who set up in business and lost money was a bad guy. As I keep saying there in no where near enough information from the OP to know what happened. I will say again I don't know what happened and I think for anyone to make statements like pay back the money, give the guy 2500 and you must be a bad guy on such little info is plain wrong, yes it might be the persons opinion it might even be correct, but I can not see how it can be made with so little info.

You as others have stated we don't know was it wound up correctly. We don't even know was it a limited company we don't know was it a sole trader, that is my point we don't know so how can anyone advise anyone in such a situation. I am not nor have I made a value judgment on the OP why you ask, because I don't have enough info to do so. I have seen people on these boards post not only incorrect info but down right dangerous info. Giving people advice that is just plain wrong. And to advice anyone in the OPs situation to contact the other person and admit the debt and then to contact a solicitor is just crazy.

I am not advising the OP not to pay I am saying take yourself off to solicitor, FLAC or MABS and give them all info and get sound advice.

pirelli · 07-02-2012 11:48am

ResearchWill wrote: »

From my understanding of The Judge Judy case it was an attack on a lawyer. She in my opinion said that there was a contract to sell a fake rug, no court should stand over any contract written or otherwise that is a fraud. It was and is bad law. She shows her self to be a bully and if that is her interpretation of law a bad judge. I would also guess Judge Judy earns more than any suprem court judge in Ireland. While she is entertaining, it is not law.

Now I have show I could last 5 mins with Judge Judy, her decision is flawed in any court it was an unveiled attack on a lawyer to sink to the lowest level. I have not insulted you to date I have attacked the post not the poster. Well gloves off I have seen you post the most stupid rubbish on this forum, you have given advice which is against forum charter and are as thick as bat crap. You have posted a judge Judy clip to back up what argument I don't know in fact the Judge Judy clip goes against the advice you gave the OP according to Judge Judy if the OP defrauded the investor/lender is does not matter there was a contract. Please in future if you are giving advice please please make sure you have all the facts and that the advice is good. Now start your rant about lawyers of you wish at least I have the balls to ID my profession.

So as you said, you would not last 5 mins in front of me at least I have run cases in the HC and SC which courts have you ran a case in just asking.

Any idiot who gets this upset over an episode of Judge Judy is an ass....Take an anxiety pill or something researchwill, get a grip on yourself.

The legal forum is great for gathering legal facts or brain storming and it has probably helped many people and it is your little refuge. I remember you were a lone voice in the Thread Devore started about SOPA. You were the only person who had to battle wave after wave of angry voices as you explained that the Sherlock's amendment wasn't going make a bat of difference.

That's who you are just a faint little voice who was just an ass to most posters.

First of all i am an engineer and would much rather be discussing nano technology and quantum physics but i have to patiently deal with the courts due to the damage vain cocky ambitious lawyers have caused.This is not your refuge any more than it is my prison.

You are all wrapped up in your career and ambitions but you forget that unlike careers in archaeology or Botany or zoology which might not have such an negative effect on people themselves ..law unfortunately has an aspect that takes peoples liberties and dignities and freedoms and destroys their families. It hurts them and leaves scars.

You ignorant if you think it's an intellectual sport like botany or zoology where you sharpen your wits and display and maybe entertain people with you legal encyclopaedia. Your all wrapped up in this web of irish law that has seen this country crumble and fall and lose it sovereignty where the insurance companies are bankrupt and many banks insolvent.

I am still here waiting for justice listening the familiar peacocks prune their feathers. Your a faint voice but at least I listen to you. Most people don't because as i and most posters have already told you 'the law is an ass'. While posters here can be very engaging and helpful I am very patient. I have very pressing questions about newly discovered evidence and while most posters are helpful it seems impossible to get a definitive answer out of this legal forum. I don't hassle people or demand answers from them, so who are you to insult me. You have this idea of the legal forum but it's just another public place and i think insulting and complaining about judge judy or me for that matter opens this forum up the very cynical place you don't want it to be. I would have thought Judge Judy would be a welcome topic in the legal forum.. how pompous you can be. The supreme court and the high court are just public hearings where people speak .. what makes you so special. Your paid to speak on behalf of the client to the courts.

pirelli · 07-02-2012 12:26pm

ResearchWill wrote: »

The reason I was astounded which was clear from my full post, was the poster in my opinion was stating any person who set up in business and lost money was a bad guy. As I keep saying there in no where near enough information from the OP to know what happened. I will say again I don't know what happened and I think for anyone to make statements like pay back the money, give the guy 2500 and you must be a bad guy on such little info is plain wrong, yes it might be the persons opinion it might even be correct, but I can not see how it can be made with so little info.

You as others have stated we don't know was it wound up correctly. We don't even know was it a limited company we don't know was it a sole trader, that is my point we don't know so how can anyone advise anyone in such a situation. I am not nor have I made a value judgment on the OP why you ask, because I don't have enough info to do so. I have seen people on these boards post not only incorrect info but down right dangerous info. Giving people advice that is just plain wrong. And to advice anyone in the OPs situation to contact the other person and admit the debt and then to contact a solicitor is just crazy.

I am not advising the OP not to pay I am saying take yourself off to solicitor, FLAC or MABS and give them all info and get sound advice.

I think Drunk monkey already explained why ResearchWill. There is an impression that things went down like the titanic without the brass band. Your just tossing hay with this post. I certainly did not come even close to giving advice.

Hey if some idiot gave some other idiot 5000 euro and then comes on an Internet forum and after been given a good telling off hands back 2500 euro. to the first idiot seems like a good days work to me.

I think your little agreement with Devore has your head spinning! Your like a little Napoleon. Ready to eliminate and take over.

ResearchWill · 07-02-2012 12:57pm

pirelli wrote: »

I think Drunk monkey already explained why ResearchWill. There is an impression that things went down like the titanic without the brass band. Your just tossing hay with this post. I certainly did not come even close to giving advice.

Hey if some idiot gave some other idiot 5000 euro and then comes on an Internet forum and after been given a good telling off hands back 2500 euro. to the first idiot seems like a good days work to me.

I think your little agreement with Devore has your head spinning! Your like a little Napoleon. Ready to eliminate and take over.

Again you did not read correctly my discussion with Devore, as I always clearly stated I neither agreed not disagreed, in fact at the end of the discussion I stated I agreed and signed the petition all I asked was that a valid argument be put together otherwise there was no hope of stoping the SI, again you misquote me.

Also I did not get into a tizzy about Judge Judy I love the show it's great fun. I got into a tizzy because in my opinion you insulted me. If you want to debate the pros and cons of the legal system fine. You will be surprised by my views I agree some lawyers do a terrible job, some real people get totally screwed over by the system.

But that system also has helped people, many people in this country have rights because people engaged with the legal system and good lawyers. If you have a personal issue with the law don't take it out on me by all means engage in a debate but do not insult me by telling me to go take a jump in a lake.

The reason I said to you that posting judge Judy to back up an argument, is that it would be like me posting a clip fro star trek to back up an argument about nano technology, something I know nothing about but would happily listen to someone who does.

Also the opinion of most of the people on boards does not bother me. But I do agree that some very interesting legal points are raised here by lawyers and non lawyers alike. But if people just want to vent against the legal system then unless they are willing to engage in discussion there is no point.

Amazotheamazing · 07-02-2012 2:50pm

pirelli wrote: »

I am entitled to my opinion and OP should return some of this person's money if he and it sounds like he might have mislead the investor and i am not assuming the person who stupidly gave him 5000 euro may be the person making this i inappropriate contact but could be one of many people including the litigant or creditors that the OP owes money too.

You are, but that opinion should be based on actual legal knowledge, not just what you think seems right. I know that's a dangerous precedent to take on the internet but one worth considering I think.

pirelli · 08-02-2012 1:46am

ResearchWill wrote: »

To be clear if I stated verbal I mean non written communication. In the Pernod case an agreement was orally entered into between Flavin and Desmond, that Flavin would sell shares in Irish Distilers for £4.50 I think. This was agreed face to face no written record of the agreement existed or was made the only communication was verbal. Then Grand Met I think offered over £5 a share and DCC tried to pull out of the deal. The SC stated that the original oral non written deal stuck.

If the SC say that it's good enough for Dermot Desmond to enter into a contract by oral means only then I personally think Judge Judy can take a jump. That oral contract was one of the most important contracts in Irish merger history as it gave the control of Irish Distilers to Pernod Ricard.

ResearchWill wrote: »

Again you did not read correctly my discussion with Devore, as I always clearly stated I neither agreed not disagreed, in fact at the end of the discussion I stated I agreed and signed the petition all I asked was that a valid argument be put together otherwise there was no hope of stoping the SI, again you misquote me.

Also I did not get into a tizzy about Judge Judy I love the show it's great fun. I got into a tizzy because in my opinion you insulted me. If you want to debate the pros and cons of the legal system fine. You will be surprised by my views I agree some lawyers do a terrible job, some real people get totally screwed over by the system.

But that system also has helped people, many people in this country have rights because people engaged with the legal system and good lawyers. If you have a personal issue with the law don't take it out on me by all means engage in a debate but do not insult me by telling me to go take a jump in a lake.

The reason I said to you that posting judge Judy to back up an argument, is that it would be like me posting a clip fro star trek to back up an argument about nano technology, something I know nothing about but would happily listen to someone who does.

Also the opinion of most of the people on boards does not bother me. But I do agree that some very interesting legal points are raised here by lawyers and non lawyers alike. But if people just want to vent against the legal system then unless they are willing to engage in discussion there is no point.

You personally insulted yourself. I was referring to your remark that Judge Judy could go take a jump....You stated this not I. You have insulted yourself.

Also while we are on the subject you have admitted taking off the gloves and your attacking the poster and not the post and start throwing insults around and then refer to the charter as if i have breached it. You a prime example of a poor judgment.

Also in your previous you berate Judge Judy say how bad her judgment is and what a bad use of the law and what a bully she is being and then your next post your saying you love Judge Judy.

You are like that lawyer in the Judge Judy clip "a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client".Your being foolish..

ResearchWill · 08-02-2012 2:34am

pirelli wrote: »

You personally insulted yourself. I was referring to your remark that Judge Judy could go take a jump....You stated this not I. You have insulted yourself.

Also while we are on the subject you have admitted taking off the gloves and your attacking the poster and not the post and start throwing insults around and then refer to the charter as if i have breached it. You a prime example of a poor judgment.

Also in your previous you berate Judge Judy say how bad her judgment is and what a bad use of the law and what a bully she is being and then your next post your saying you love Judge Judy.

You are like that lawyer in the Judge Judy clip "a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client".Your being foolish..

You stated "Tsk Tsk 'Jump in a lake' You wouldn't last five minutes with her with that attitude sir. Come back when your a judge." That whole sentence in my opinion was to direct an insult to me, maybe you don't think so, but as you said I am entitled to my opinion. If it was not directed as an insult, then I unreservedly withdraw any insulting remark I made about you.

I stated in my statement about judge Judy " While she is entertaining, it is not law." I love the show, part of the reason I like it is that she in my opinion is a twat.

You stated in your first post "You want him to sue you for his money!! You might consider giving the person 2,500 back." I would consider that to be giving advise, maybe you don't but I do, again my opinion.

I am not representing my self I did not know this was a criminal or civil case I thought it was a forum, two people engage in debate, unless you want me to do so through a third party.

BTW I do not understand the following "You a prime example of a poor judgment." are you saying I exercised poor judgment in some matter, or I am a poor judgement.

pirelli · 08-02-2012 3:01am

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

You are, but that opinion should be based on actual legal knowledge, not just what you think seems right. I know that's a dangerous precedent to take on the internet but one worth considering I think.

Many posters here have assumed the person who gave the 5000 euros to the business was an investor who assumed the risk and was due nothing in return. While this might sound great to the OP... it just may not be the case. We do not know if the 5000 was an investment or a loan or if they were known to each other or how the loan came about.

I will say from what the OP said and if we assume it was not a loan then it was based on promises that might have been inherently untrue and the money might not even qualify as an investment. All it might take is for one financial or other concealment for the question of inherent value and inherent fraud to possibly be raised.

I am not giving any advice whilst many are dismissing the money as an investment i am questioning if it could even be considered an investment.

There so many laws surrounding this area. The laws have changed and you cannot just dismiss money by using the word investment.

I am quoting the citizens information ireland so please don't all the while try to sound like a reasonable advisor then lecture me about so called danger's of giving opinions over the internet.

Citizens information:

The requirements of the Consumer Protection Act and the EC Product Prices Regulations 2002 apply to online advertising. There is also some protection for Irish consumers from misleading advertisements received by email. The law also gives individual Member States the right in certain circumstances to act against online businesses to protect consumers, particularly potential investors.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/consumer_protection/consumer_rights/consumer_advertising.html

Marketing and investors
http://www.dilloneustace.ie/download/1/A%20Guide%20to%20Selling%20Irish%20Regulated%20Investment%20Funds%20in%20Asia.pdf

Discovery of fraud in a subsidiary led to a complete risk management overhaul
Greencore reported that it had discovered “cost concealment” at its Scottish Water business. According to Greencore, this issue “led the Group to conduct a thorough review of its control environment and material Group risks.

Securities frauds from the USA

http://ie.vlex.com/vid/misselling-misleading-acting-promoters-217268695
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/sct/sctreg/regidx.htm
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2010/comp21515.pdf

ResearchWill · 08-02-2012 3:05am

pirelli wrote: »

Many posters here have assumed the person who gave the 5000 euros to the business was an investor who assumed the risk and was due nothing in return. While this might sound great to the OP... it just may not be the case. We do not know if the 5000 was an investment or a loan or if they were known to each other or how the loan came about.

I will say from what the OP said and if we assume it was not a loan then it was based on promises that might have been inherently untrue and the money might not even qualify as an investment. All it might take is for one financial or other concealment for the question of inherent value and inherent fraud to possibly be raised.

I am not giving any advice whilst many are dismissing the money as an investment i am questioning if it could even be considered an investment.

There so many laws surrounding this area. The laws have changed and you cannot just dismiss money by using the word investment.

I am quoting the citizens information ireland so please don't all the while try to sound like a reasonable advisor then lecture me about so called danger's of giving opinions over the internet.

Citizens information:

The requirements of the Consumer Protection Act and the EC Product Prices Regulations 2002 apply to online advertising. There is also some protection for Irish consumers from misleading advertisements received by email. The law also gives individual Member States the right in certain circumstances to act against online businesses to protect consumers, particularly potential investors.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/consumer_protection/consumer_rights/consumer_advertising.html

In case I have missed something, what has consumer advertising got to do with a business deal, be it investment, loan or anything else.

Can you also explain the SEC links and the info about selling investments in Asia.

pirelli · 08-02-2012 3:18am

ResearchWill wrote: »

You stated "Tsk Tsk 'Jump in a lake' You wouldn't last five minutes with her with that attitude sir. Come back when your a judge." That whole sentence in my opinion was to direct an insult to me, maybe you don't think so, but as you said I am entitled to my opinion. If it was not directed as an insult, then I unreservedly withdraw any insulting remark I made about you.

I stated in my statement about judge Judy " While she is entertaining, it is not law." I love the show, part of the reason I like it is that she in my opinion is a twat.

You stated in your first post "You want him to sue you for his money!! You might consider giving the person 2,500 back." I would consider that to be giving advise, maybe you don't but I do, again my opinion.

I am not representing my self I did not know this was a criminal or civil case I thought it was a forum, two people engage in debate, unless you want me to do so through a third party.

BTW I do not understand the following "You a prime example of a poor judgment." are you saying I exercised poor judgment in some matter, or I am a poor judgement.

You initially claimed that you were insulted by being to to go take a jump in a lake and then when I pointed out it was in fact yourself that said ' so and so should go take a jump' you have immediately gone and found something else to be insulted by.

I am not going to massage the ego of an anonymous person online who by his own admission insults himself but then calls judge judy 'a real person' a twat and heavily criticises her.. i am entitled to challenge that Judge Judy would outperform you with her wit and style in five minutes. How is that insulting.

What you should not be offended by researchwill is trivial remarks made in this forum and if you think any of these comments are a reflection of your abilities as a professional. They are not.

I was not offended by your Anthropomorphic rant about bats and in fact you remind me of the great eccentric William Buckland , Victorian geologist and zoophagist ....a story of a visit that he and some colleagues took to St Paul’s Cathedral where they found a strange stain on the stone floor. The visitors speculated on what this strange mark could be – there was a claim that the mark was a saint’s blood, while WB got straight to the nub of the problem. Getting onto his hands and knees like a dog, he licked the substance and announced to the amazed host ‘bat urine!’.

ResearchWill · 08-02-2012 3:36am

pirelli wrote: »

You initially claimed that you were insulted by being to to go take a jump in a lake and then when I pointed out it was in fact yourself that said ' so and so should go take a jump' you have immediately gone and found something else to be insulted by.

I am not going to massage the ego of an anonymous person online who by his own admission insults himself but then calls judge judy 'a real person' a twat and heavily criticises her.. i am entitled to challenge that Judge Judy would outperform you with her wit and style in five minutes. How is that insulting.

What you should not be offended by researchwill is trivial remarks made in this forum and if you think any of these comments are a reflection of your abilities as a professional. They are not.

I was not offended by your Anthropomorphic rant about bats and in fact you remind me of the great eccentric William Buckland , Victorian geologist and zoophagist ....a story of a visit that he and some colleagues took to St Paul’s Cathedral where they found a strange stain on the stone floor. The visitors speculated on what this strange mark could be – there was a claim that the mark was a saint’s blood, while WB got straight to the nub of the problem. Getting onto his hands and knees like a dog, he licked the substance and announced to the amazed host ‘bat urine!’.

The final paragraph, now that's witty. BTW I think rant is too strong a word, more a passing remark. If I ever get the chance to go up against Judge Judy, I promise to inform you before hand so you can see, if your opinion holds water. I am sad you won't massage my ego, it is all I ever wanted. In relation to the insult comment I do believe I unreservedly withdrew.

pirelli · 08-02-2012 3:44am

ResearchWill wrote: »

The final paragraph, now that's witty. BTW I think rant is too strong a word, more a passing remark. If I ever get the chance to go up against Judge Judy, I promise to inform you before hand so you can see, if your opinion holds water. I am sad you won't massage my ego, it is all I ever wanted. In relation to the insult comment I do believe I unreservedly withdrew.

Here u go so!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui7EB1Yx9SM

'Debt Collector'

Comments