Ha I don't know if that's the plate! I was just guessing cause I recall a plate like that going for mega bucks a while ago. Although I think it was just 88.
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.
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.
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.
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'
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'
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
Trusted
ID Verified
