StarGateWars Forums

I'm back from my little holiday, visiting my Girlfriend, but i don't have much time this evening so for now here's some interesting stuff i've been busy with since my return.

Letter sent to my solicitor (for advice, of course)

Good Morning John.

This might interest you if you have a few minutes. Yesterday, as i returned from Leeds, i was refused exit at Leeds City Rail Station. Now, the reason was due to me not having a ticket. The was no prior opportunity and, in my opinion, the gaurd was not doing his job by entering me into a contract but that is beyond the point; i don't do someone else's job unless i get their wage on principle and so i did not, apparantly, fulfill my obligation to obtain a ticket. Other than the gaurd on my train there was no opportunity until the destination station to purchase a ticket other than knocking on the gaurd's door on the train under warning not to do so by way of notice on the door. So, back to me being refused exit from the station; i study philosophy (you might remember) and i was sure this constituted duress in common law so i looked it up and sure enough, i'm sure a man of your distinction knows what i found.

"By duress of persons at common law is usually meant the compulsion under which a person acts through fear of personal suffering as from injury to the body or from confinement, actual or threatened2"

Unconscionable Bargains?

"In contract law, a court of equity will set aside a transaction entered into as a result of conduct which, though not amounting to actual fraud or deceit, is contrary to good conscience."

I was forced to join a huge queue to purchase the ticket in order to leave the station. Since i don't feel i was given any indication that if i boarded the train i was entering any contract. There was absolutely no other way out of detainment whatsoever and i subsequently almost missed my connecting bus having left ample time to board for manchester. I felt both criminal and also humiliated; one ticket teller was actually joking at me! He just kept saying, "Let me ask you a question, do you think i look like Bono?". It was outrageous, here i was distressed and clearly upset, trying to glean a ticket from him and he wanted to tell me a punchline. In the end the teller was so rude as to cause me to apologise to the next in line and move to the next teller! The comedian teller would not give me his badge number or name, either. I'm a very clam and collected man usually, if a little disorganised, i'm sure i'm on camera.

and the notice of proceedings request i've sent to the offices of fair trading-

Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 2083

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

This document states that my complaint can only be notified by the Director (Director General of Fair Trading or other Qualifying Body). OFT does not get involved in individual disputes however i am certainly not the only person to be affected by my complaint. Leeds city rail station, in my opinion, is commiting Duress of Persons by not allowing persons leave of their stations without a valid ticket.

"In contract law, by duress of persons at common law is usually meant the compulsion under which a person acts through fear of personal suffering as from injury to the body or from confinement, actual or threatened."

Prior to being detained by British Rail i was given no opportunity to purchase a ticket, neither was i indicated to in any way that by boarding the train i had entered into a contractual obligation which could be used to detain me through non-compliance.

Unfair Trading states:

(i) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract;
(n) limiting the seller's or supplier's obligation to respect commitments undertaken by his agents or making his commitments subject to compliance with a particular formality;

Thank you for your time.

I'll use this thread to show the good people how this turns out. If it's not appropriate for the section, could it be moved? It get's rather confusing down here in the depths of the forum

-Goo™ ...know philosophy, know the law. The Common Law.

My understanding is that if you ask to see a contract upon being told that you have certain obligations and a contract whereof you are a signatory is not shown, you obviously have no such obligations.

Furthermore, if you are made to fulfil any such "obligations", you are clearly acting under protest and duress and after having fulfilled them, you are now entitled to create the contract, yourself. The officer is obliged to note that you are operating under protest and duress.

I'm not certain on how this works if you are acting as a person, though. Because a person may inherently have the obligation by virtue of it being an entity, to which rights and obligations have been ascribed.

My thoughts exactly and emtirely Agapooka. Blimey, it's good to see you Squire!

Where did you board the train? These days most stations in the UK have a big sign up somewhere saying you must purchase a ticket before boarding the train or at unmanned stations they say you must purchase a ticket from the relevant person immediately after boarding.

So you should be well aware of the conditions for travel before boarding any train. And its well within the train companies rights to ask to see your ticket before allowing you to leave their property.

Whence would the awareness of the conditions come if not through the form of an agreement or contract that is binding? Furthermore, where is the notice that one is accepting those conditions upon entering the transportation company's property and where is the opportunity to view those conditions prior to accepting them? Last but not least, where is the opportunity to fulfill the conditions by purchasing a ticket upon entering the premises of the transportation company and accepting and gaining awareness of the binding contract between it and you?

Usually Aga at the bottom of signs of this nature is something along the lines of

'entry on XYZ will consitute an agrrement to these terms'

or it might even be 'boarding a train consitutes an agreement to these terms'

And I've found that in train stations that these signs are in the foyers as well as on the platforms, so its not like you can miss them easily.

I was never stating that it wasn't there. I was only giving the criteria for a binding contract between you and, let's say, a private business.

Of course, it differs with public property, which isn't private property. One cannot lawfully force the owner of a given property to obey their rules on the property of the aforementioned owner, unless the owner gives consent.

If, however, one is acting through their person, regulations can be imposed on the person.

Greetings Kit-Fox, welcome to my topic

I'm not sure maybe you haven't quite understood my initial post. I make very clear (or so i thought) that i was in no way at all notified in any way that i was entering into a contract by boarding the train. I was certianly not made aware that through entering into such a contract that i could be detained conditionally. I'm heavily into civil liberties and, although Northern Rail is not governement owned, this incident outlines something which angers me greatly in our current sociological/political climate - due process of persons and law of the land or natural law or common law. This incodent, when viewed in this manner unequivocally constitues an act of duress of person. My person was acted upon without contractual obligation and if it was, in fact (which is what i'm attempting to find out) acted upon under contractual obligation then trading standards will have to force Northern Rail to get their train gaurds to do their damn jobs! The fundamental job of a train conductor (according to the job description) is to assist the engineer in the lawful application of the railway's rules and regulations. Therefore it was absolutely the responsibility of the engineer or conductor of the train to enter me into a contract and (if i should excersice my human right to do so under natural law) have that contract explained to me in full in a way which is to be considered reasonably understandable.

Agapooka is right, and so am i. There has certainly been an unlawful act here, it is only a matter of which sense ie. natural law of contract, contractual law of duress of person or simply unfair trading. I don't care which way round they want to admit it, as long as it gets admitted and i can notify the public of my findings. I am a human and if the government are going to assign me a "person" at birth without my consent then they jolly well have a damn right fundamental responsibility to protect that "PERSON"!

Oh dear I sense that freeman concept again.

I only got into this as most people dont pay any attention to these signs anymore and so you may have actually missed it or walked right by it. It wouldn't be too shocking as thats what 99% of the population does & as far as i understand it, if it is on display in a promiment area and you ignore it then it's you thats at fault and not the company

Kit-Fox wrote:Oh dear I sense that freeman concept again.

I only got into this as most people dont pay any attention to these signs anymore and so you may have actually missed it or walked right by it.

You think if i had studied the language of law and subsequently the maritime perversion of such (which created the need for a swift and implicit reversion to natural law) i would walk past such a thing? Pah. Freeman maybe, unobservant of my human rights? No.

It wouldn't be too shocking as thats what 99% of the population does & as far as i understand it, if it is on display in a promiment area and you ignore it then it's you thats at fault and not the company

Yes, but thanks to the responsible who take time to understand natural law, these abuses of "person" by the establishment can be dealt with. It is, essentially what it is there for.

Even in the case of notices you have to be made a party to the terms of the contract. So, even a notice can be taken into consideration. Hence appeal.

Don't be using the word Person, you are a Human being and you have a Person... There is a massive difference, and knowing so can help you to avoid sticky situations.

SOlid Snake wrote:Don't be using the word Person, you are a Human being and you have a Person... There is a massive difference, and knowing so can help you to avoid sticky situations.

It is natural law.