scottjpalmer:

joker97: I don't know why people have vanity plates other than advertising ... coz it's just saying to other drivers look at me I'm an ... (fill in anything not pleasant)

I don't know why people who have a little pride in their vehicle brand it with a string of random letters and numbers that don't show the slightest bit of personality.

Different strokes . . .

nathan:

scottjpalmer:

joker97: I don't know why people have vanity plates other than advertising ... coz it's just saying to other drivers look at me I'm an ... (fill in anything not pleasant)

I don't know why people who have a little pride in their vehicle brand it with a string of random letters and numbers that don't show the slightest bit of personality.

Different strokes . . .

I prefer the anonymity of a non vanity plate

StevieT: You need permission to sue in New Zealand.

I take it you have he has not been granted that right to sue you, so you aren't being sued.

But I would consider seeking legal advise as a lot of things these days are binding. I guess you need to be sure you want to sell something before you let others make an offer and you accept.

insane: I remember while studying com law at uni that if the price being offered by one party to the next is not a true reflection of the items value, then the contract can be voided. I'd like to say I can remember the parties involved in the case.

nickrout:

insane: I remember while studying com law at uni that if the price being offered by one party to the next is not a true reflection of the items value, then the contract can be voided. I'd like to say I can remember the parties involved in the case.

No, wrong.

insane:

nickrout:

insane: I remember while studying com law at uni that if the price being offered by one party to the next is not a true reflection of the items value, then the contract can be voided. I'd like to say I can remember the parties involved in the case.

No, wrong.

I've looked over the notes I had, think I may have confused it slightly as the case I'm thinking of looks to have been 'Nichols v Jessop [1986] 1 NZLR 226'

Think it falls under 'UNCONSCIONABLE BARGAINS' or 'UNDUE INFLUENCE'

wasabi2k: unless the price of the plate was his first born child OR contract was made at gunpoint.