On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 11:01:45 +0100, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
>> Woolworths
>
>There is still one of those in Strasbourg, but the continental arm was a
>separate business anyway.
>
I believe they are alive and well in Australia.

On 04/08/2023 10:45, SH wrote:
> On 04/08/2023 10:27, Brian Gaff wrote:
>> Ah but you were taking the piss, this is a problem of ambiguous
>> tagging of
>> items.
>>   Even Amazon  say things like 1 off, then a length choice. If they
>> had done
>> that then it would be obvious what you wanted.
>>   Brian
>>
>
>
> how is this taking the piss? I gave the customer *exactly* what he asked
> for......

You sure?

Chippies advertise a price for "chips". In ordinary usage that is using
"chips" to mean an amount (undefined on the list) of chips. So when
someone asks for "2 chips" they are asking for "2 of the amount of chips
for which you charge...".

Your interpretation of "2 chips" only makes sense if, when customers
asked for "chips", you presented them with one chip. I doubt you'd have
kept your job (or in some chippies your teeth) for long.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 04/08/2023 03:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> I would say that they are not a business that has a market any more. The
> internet has destroyed most of the high street, and if the gummint had
> any sense they would start changing the shops into cheap accommodation
>

There are 3 larger stores in my town where they sell the same items that
Wilko used to sell - and these seem to be always busy. The difference is
to use Wilko you would have to pay a fortune for parking whilst the 3
competing stores have free parking. A lot of physical retail that
competes with Wilco is not in the traditional high street to retail
parks, and not necessary in out of town locations.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 04/08/2023 11:55, Scott wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 11:01:45 +0100, Colin Bignell
> <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
>>> Woolworths
>>
>> There is still one of those in Strasbourg, but the continental arm was a
>> separate business anyway.
>>
> I believe they are alive and well in Australia.

And in Germany.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 03:09:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 03/08/2023 21:03, Colin Bignell wrote:
>> On 03/08/2023 20:13, Scott wrote:
>>> On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 19:51:40 +0100, Mark Carver
>>> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03/08/2023 17:06, Scott wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 16:56:09 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Likely into administration at least
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66395824>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's funny, none of their shops are amazingly convenient for me, but
>>>>>> they often turn out to be the one place you can buy slightly off-beat
>>>>>> items without waiting for internet delivery ...
>>>>> I like them too.  When I wanted electrical cable by the metre, they
>>>>> were about the only place that sold it.
>>>> I ended up at Wilkos to buy a 5 metre length of 0.75mm^2 mains flex. I'd
>>>> ordered 5 metres from CPC (as part of another order)
>>>> What turned up in the box were Qty 5 , one metre lengths of the flex !
>>>> I phoned to complain, the bloke in customer services just didn't get
>>>> what the problem was, saying it was supplied per metre !
>>>>
>>>> I'm a fan too of Wilkos. I've always regarded them as the 21st Century's
>>>> version of Woolies.
>>>>   Sad to see them go, though my local branch has had very bare shelves
>>>> since Covid.
>>>
>>> The guy I heard on the radio seemed fairly confident they can keep
>>> negotiating while in administration and that there are interested
>>> buyers out there.
>>
>> It seems to be a cash flow problem. By going into administration, they
>> get a bit more time to sort out investors or a buyer.
>>
>I would say that they are not a business that has a market any more. The
>internet has destroyed most of the high street, and if the gummint had
>any sense they would start changing the shops into cheap accommodation

I still think there is a lot to be said for walking through the
entrance, buying what you need and leaving through the exit - compared
with ordering online and guessing when it might arrive, where it is
likely to be left, whether it gets stolen, whether it is damaged in
transit, whether it fits and whether it is what you wanted in the
first place.

On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 12:00:28 +0100, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:

>On 04/08/2023 11:55, Scott wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 11:01:45 +0100, Colin Bignell
>> <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
>>>> Woolworths
>>>
>>> There is still one of those in Strasbourg, but the continental arm was a
>>> separate business anyway.
>>>
>> I believe they are alive and well in Australia.
>
>And in Germany.

But not in the USA or the Woolworth Building.

On 04/08/2023 07:56, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 03/08/2023 22:37, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Jeff Layman wrote:
>>
>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>
>>>> yorkshire trading company
>>>
>>> Nearest one is only about 150 miles away...
>> The two I've used are in Notts and Lincs ...
>
> I'm waaaay darn sarf...
>
> As alan_m noted, there's also The Range. We used to go to one quite a
> lot when we wanted to go to Lidl as it was next door. Then a Lidl opened
> a lot closer, so The Range missed out.
>

The Range has a greater variety of the more general domestic hardware
stuff than Wilko but not the items such as toothpaste, disinfectant,
soaps, over the counter health type creams etc. but then we also have
store like Super Drug who not only compete with Wilco but also Boots.
In my town B&M and Home Bargains are next door to one another and
combined offer a far superior range of products to that found in Wilko,
even when Wilko was doing well.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 04/08/2023 11:57, Robin wrote:
> On 04/08/2023 10:45, SH wrote:
>> On 04/08/2023 10:27, Brian Gaff wrote:
>>> Ah but you were taking the piss, this is a problem of ambiguous
>>> tagging of
>>> items.
>>>   Even Amazon  say things like 1 off, then a length choice. If they
>>> had done
>>> that then it would be obvious what you wanted.
>>>   Brian
>>>
>>
>>
>> how is this taking the piss? I gave the customer *exactly* what he
>> asked for......
>
> You sure?
>
> Chippies advertise a price for "chips".  In ordinary usage that is using
> "chips" to mean an amount (undefined on the list) of chips.  So when
> someone asks for "2 chips" they are asking for "2 of the amount of chips
> for which you charge...".
>
> Your interpretation of "2 chips" only makes sense if, when customers
> asked for "chips", you presented them with one chip.  I doubt you'd have
> kept your job (or in some chippies your teeth) for long.
>
>
>

Well the customer should have said 2 portions of chips in the first place!

On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 12:15:51 +0100, SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:

>On 04/08/2023 11:57, Robin wrote:
>> On 04/08/2023 10:45, SH wrote:
>>> On 04/08/2023 10:27, Brian Gaff wrote:
>>>> Ah but you were taking the piss, this is a problem of ambiguous
>>>> tagging of
>>>> items.
>>>>   Even Amazon  say things like 1 off, then a length choice. If they
>>>> had done
>>>> that then it would be obvious what you wanted.
>>>>   Brian
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> how is this taking the piss? I gave the customer *exactly* what he
>>> asked for......
>>
>> You sure?
>>
>> Chippies advertise a price for "chips".  In ordinary usage that is using
>> "chips" to mean an amount (undefined on the list) of chips.  So when
>> someone asks for "2 chips" they are asking for "2 of the amount of chips
>> for which you charge...".
>>
>> Your interpretation of "2 chips" only makes sense if, when customers
>> asked for "chips", you presented them with one chip.  I doubt you'd have
>> kept your job (or in some chippies your teeth) for long.
>
>Well the customer should have said 2 portions of chips in the first place!

Absolutely. This is a contract in law, that requires to be expressed
in clear and unambiguous terms. I suggest also specifying the size of
the portion and the temperature at which it should be served.

charles wrote:

> I suspect art of their problem is having too many shops full of stock.
> That ties up a significant amount of capital.

Not necessarily Wilko's capital though ...

I don't know Wilko use this model, but for some supermarkets/products
the stock on the shelves is owned by the producer/distributor, on a "pay
as you sell" basis.

On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 12:23:46 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

>charles wrote:
>
>> I suspect art of their problem is having too many shops full of stock.
>> That ties up a significant amount of capital.
>
>Not necessarily Wilko's capital though ...
>
>I don't know Wilko use this model, but for some supermarkets/products
>the stock on the shelves is owned by the producer/distributor, on a "pay
>as you sell" basis.

Yes, I believe this is what happened with Zavvi when Entertainment UK
(itself a subsidiary of Woolworths) went into administration and the
stock was recalled by the administrators.

On 04 Aug 2023, Andy Burns wrote

> charles wrote:
>
>> I suspect art of their problem is having too many shops full of
>> stock. That ties up a significant amount of capital.
>
> Not necessarily Wilko's capital though ...
>
> I don't know Wilko use this model, but for some
> supermarkets/products the stock on the shelves is owned by the
> producer/distributor, on a "pay as you sell" basis.

Yes, and the key prerequisite that makes that system work is that
suppliers take out insurance against the possibility of the retailer
going bust and not being able to pay for the goods.

AIUI, some of the specialist insurance firms that handle that sort of
business deemed that Wilko was at risk of going under, and stopped
covering goods supplied to the them. Understandably, some suppliers
stopped sending stuff to Wilko, which is why they have so many empty
shelves.

On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 12:49:40 +0100, HVS <office@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 04 Aug 2023, Andy Burns wrote
>
>> charles wrote:
>>
>>> I suspect art of their problem is having too many shops full of
>>> stock. That ties up a significant amount of capital.
>>
>> Not necessarily Wilko's capital though ...
>>
>> I don't know Wilko use this model, but for some
>> supermarkets/products the stock on the shelves is owned by the
>> producer/distributor, on a "pay as you sell" basis.
>
>Yes, and the key prerequisite that makes that system work is that
>suppliers take out insurance against the possibility of the retailer
>going bust and not being able to pay for the goods.
>
>AIUI, some of the specialist insurance firms that handle that sort of
>business deemed that Wilko was at risk of going under, and stopped
>covering goods supplied to the them. Understandably, some suppliers
>stopped sending stuff to Wilko, which is why they have so many empty
>shelves.

Re my previous post, it comes back to me. I think this is what
happened with Zavvi.

On 04/08/2023 12:00, Scott wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 03:09:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 03/08/2023 21:03, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>> On 03/08/2023 20:13, Scott wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 19:51:40 +0100, Mark Carver
>>>> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 03/08/2023 17:06, Scott wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 16:56:09 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Likely into administration at least
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66395824>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's funny, none of their shops are amazingly convenient for me, but
>>>>>>> they often turn out to be the one place you can buy slightly off-beat
>>>>>>> items without waiting for internet delivery ...
>>>>>> I like them too.  When I wanted electrical cable by the metre, they
>>>>>> were about the only place that sold it.
>>>>> I ended up at Wilkos to buy a 5 metre length of 0.75mm^2 mains flex. I'd
>>>>> ordered 5 metres from CPC (as part of another order)
>>>>> What turned up in the box were Qty 5 , one metre lengths of the flex !
>>>>> I phoned to complain, the bloke in customer services just didn't get
>>>>> what the problem was, saying it was supplied per metre !
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm a fan too of Wilkos. I've always regarded them as the 21st Century's
>>>>> version of Woolies.
>>>>>   Sad to see them go, though my local branch has had very bare shelves
>>>>> since Covid.
>>>>
>>>> The guy I heard on the radio seemed fairly confident they can keep
>>>> negotiating while in administration and that there are interested
>>>> buyers out there.
>>>
>>> It seems to be a cash flow problem. By going into administration, they
>>> get a bit more time to sort out investors or a buyer.
>>>
>> I would say that they are not a business that has a market any more. The
>> internet has destroyed most of the high street, and if the gummint had
>> any sense they would start changing the shops into cheap accommodation
>
> I still think there is a lot to be said for walking through the
> entrance, buying what you need and leaving through the exit - compared
> with ordering online and guessing when it might arrive, where it is
> likely to be left, whether it gets stolen, whether it is damaged in
> transit, whether it fits and whether it is what you wanted in the
> first place.

+1

--
Max Demian

Am 04/08/2023 um 09:22 schrieb Brian Gaff:
> Is this the same company we knew as Wilkinson's?
> Brian
>

Where have you been the last 10 years? Prison or Costa del Crime?

--
Ottavio Caruso

On 04/08/2023 12:22, Scott wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 12:15:51 +0100, SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> On 04/08/2023 11:57, Robin wrote:
>>> On 04/08/2023 10:45, SH wrote:
>>>> On 04/08/2023 10:27, Brian Gaff wrote:
>>>>> Ah but you were taking the piss, this is a problem of ambiguous
>>>>> tagging of
>>>>> items.
>>>>>   Even Amazon  say things like 1 off, then a length choice. If they
>>>>> had done
>>>>> that then it would be obvious what you wanted.
>>>>>   Brian
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> how is this taking the piss? I gave the customer *exactly* what he
>>>> asked for......
>>>
>>> You sure?
>>>
>>> Chippies advertise a price for "chips".  In ordinary usage that is using
>>> "chips" to mean an amount (undefined on the list) of chips.  So when
>>> someone asks for "2 chips" they are asking for "2 of the amount of chips
>>> for which you charge...".
>>>
>>> Your interpretation of "2 chips" only makes sense if, when customers
>>> asked for "chips", you presented them with one chip.  I doubt you'd have
>>> kept your job (or in some chippies your teeth) for long.
>>
>> Well the customer should have said 2 portions of chips in the first place!
>
> Absolutely. This is a contract in law, that requires to be expressed
> in clear and unambiguous terms. I suggest also specifying the size of > the portion and the temperature at which it should be served.

Absolutely correct, a contract can be either in written form, in spoken
form or in implied form....

So I had a verbal contract offered to me to supply just 2 chips, so I
created an implied action that I was accepting the verbally offered
contract by providing him with 2 chips on a sheet of paper....

On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 14:48:31 +0100, SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:

>On 04/08/2023 12:22, Scott wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 12:15:51 +0100, SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/08/2023 11:57, Robin wrote:
>>>> On 04/08/2023 10:45, SH wrote:
>>>>> On 04/08/2023 10:27, Brian Gaff wrote:
>>>>>> Ah but you were taking the piss, this is a problem of ambiguous
>>>>>> tagging of
>>>>>> items.
>>>>>>   Even Amazon  say things like 1 off, then a length choice. If they
>>>>>> had done
>>>>>> that then it would be obvious what you wanted.
>>>>>>   Brian
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> how is this taking the piss? I gave the customer *exactly* what he
>>>>> asked for......
>>>>
>>>> You sure?
>>>>
>>>> Chippies advertise a price for "chips".  In ordinary usage that is using
>>>> "chips" to mean an amount (undefined on the list) of chips.  So when
>>>> someone asks for "2 chips" they are asking for "2 of the amount of chips
>>>> for which you charge...".
>>>>
>>>> Your interpretation of "2 chips" only makes sense if, when customers
>>>> asked for "chips", you presented them with one chip.  I doubt you'd have
>>>> kept your job (or in some chippies your teeth) for long.
>>>
>>> Well the customer should have said 2 portions of chips in the first place!
>>
>> Absolutely. This is a contract in law, that requires to be expressed
>> in clear and unambiguous terms. I suggest also specifying the size of > the portion and the temperature at which it should be served.
>
>
>Absolutely correct, a contract can be either in written form, in spoken
>form or in implied form....
>
>So I had a verbal contract offered to me to supply just 2 chips, so I
>created an implied action that I was accepting the verbally offered
>contract by providing him with 2 chips on a sheet of paper....

What about the contra proferentem rule?

On 8/3/23 16:56, Andy Burns wrote:
> Likely into administration at least
>
> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66395824>
>
> It's funny, none of their shops are amazingly convenient for me, but
> they often turn out to be the one place you can buy slightly off-beat
> items without waiting for internet delivery ...

In the way that the woman in the street had no idea what it was that
Maplin sold, I had generally had blind Bambi what it was that Wilko sold
- and why I should habitually visit?

Stationary?
Shampoo?
Cushions?
Plastic boxes?
DIY?

Off beat, yeah - difficult identity.

Perhaps either of the other two off-beaters (Lidl/Aldi) should
investigate expanding into their space, supersizing their non-food
offerings?

They have at least made kind of a success out of it, while Tchibo and
Clas Ohlson failed.

--
Adrian C

On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 14:48:31 +0100, SH wrote:

> On 04/08/2023 12:22, Scott wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 12:15:51 +0100, SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/08/2023 11:57, Robin wrote:
>>>> On 04/08/2023 10:45, SH wrote:
>>>>> On 04/08/2023 10:27, Brian Gaff wrote:
>>>>>> Ah but you were taking the piss, this is a problem of ambiguous
>>>>>> tagging of items.
>>>>>>   Even Amazon  say things like 1 off, then a length choice. If
>>>>>>   they
>>>>>> had done that then it would be obvious what you wanted.
>>>>>>   Brian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> how is this taking the piss? I gave the customer *exactly* what he
>>>>> asked for......
>>>>
>>>> You sure?
>>>>
>>>> Chippies advertise a price for "chips".  In ordinary usage that is
>>>> using "chips" to mean an amount (undefined on the list) of chips.  So
>>>> when someone asks for "2 chips" they are asking for "2 of the amount
>>>> of chips for which you charge...".
>>>>
>>>> Your interpretation of "2 chips" only makes sense if, when customers
>>>> asked for "chips", you presented them with one chip.  I doubt you'd
>>>> have kept your job (or in some chippies your teeth) for long.
>>>
>>> Well the customer should have said 2 portions of chips in the first
>>> place!
>>
>> Absolutely. This is a contract in law, that requires to be expressed
>> in clear and unambiguous terms. I suggest also specifying the size of
>> > the portion and the temperature at which it should be served.
>
>
> Absolutely correct, a contract can be either in written form, in spoken
> form or in implied form....
>
> So I had a verbal contract offered to me to supply just 2 chips, so I
> created an implied action that I was accepting the verbally offered
> contract by providing him with 2 chips on a sheet of paper....

So what would they have got for:

"Two fish and chips"

"Fish and chips twice"

"Chips twice"

??!

nib

On 04/08/2023 14:48, SH wrote:
> On 04/08/2023 12:22, Scott wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 12:15:51 +0100, SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/08/2023 11:57, Robin wrote:
>>>> On 04/08/2023 10:45, SH wrote:
>>>>> On 04/08/2023 10:27, Brian Gaff wrote:
>>>>>> Ah but you were taking the piss, this is a problem of ambiguous
>>>>>> tagging of
>>>>>> items.
>>>>>>    Even Amazon  say things like 1 off, then a length choice. If they
>>>>>> had done
>>>>>> that then it would be obvious what you wanted.
>>>>>>    Brian
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> how is this taking the piss? I gave the customer *exactly* what he
>>>>> asked for......
>>>>
>>>> You sure?
>>>>
>>>> Chippies advertise a price for "chips".  In ordinary usage that is
>>>> using
>>>> "chips" to mean an amount (undefined on the list) of chips.  So when
>>>> someone asks for "2 chips" they are asking for "2 of the amount of
>>>> chips
>>>> for which you charge...".
>>>>
>>>> Your interpretation of "2 chips" only makes sense if, when customers
>>>> asked for "chips", you presented them with one chip.  I doubt you'd
>>>> have
>>>> kept your job (or in some chippies your teeth) for long.
>>>
>>> Well the customer should have said 2 portions of chips in the first
>>> place!
>>
>> Absolutely.  This is a contract in law, that requires to be expressed
>> in clear and unambiguous terms.  I suggest also specifying the size of
>> > the portion and the temperature at which it should be served.
>
>
> Absolutely correct, a contract can be either in written form, in spoken
> form or in implied form....
>
> So I had a verbal contract offered to me to supply just 2 chips, so I
> created an implied action that I was accepting the verbally offered
> contract by providing him with 2 chips on a sheet of paper....

See you in court.

In England a contract is not construed pedantically to achieve a bizarre
result that benefits one awfully clever party. It's construed "to
determine what the parties meant by the language used, which involves
ascertaining what a reasonable person would have understood the parties
to have meant". Here "the relevant reasonable person is one who has all
the background knowledge which would reasonably have been available to
the parties in the situation in which they were at the time of the
contract."[1]

I suppose you might just possible have a case if you could provide
evidence that when asked for "1 chips" you provided a single chip, and
this was well known to your regular customers. Well, could you?

And I have no idea what makes you think contracts are /required/ to be
be expressed in clear and unambiguous terms. It's a good idea to do so.
But few do in routine matters. E.g. when did you last specify
unambiguously what you wanted by way of "chips" - number, weight,
variety of potato, oil, cooking temperature....?

[1] quotes from Lord Clarke at 14 in the Supreme Court judgment in Rainy
Day
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/50.html

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 04/08/2023 16:49, Robin wrote:
> On 04/08/2023 14:48, SH wrote:
>> On 04/08/2023 12:22, Scott wrote:
>>> On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 12:15:51 +0100, SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 04/08/2023 11:57, Robin wrote:
>>>>> On 04/08/2023 10:45, SH wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/08/2023 10:27, Brian Gaff wrote:
>>>>>>> Ah but you were taking the piss, this is a problem of ambiguous
>>>>>>> tagging of
>>>>>>> items.
>>>>>>>    Even Amazon  say things like 1 off, then a length choice. If they
>>>>>>> had done
>>>>>>> that then it would be obvious what you wanted.
>>>>>>>    Brian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> how is this taking the piss? I gave the customer *exactly* what he
>>>>>> asked for......
>>>>>
>>>>> You sure?
>>>>>
>>>>> Chippies advertise a price for "chips".  In ordinary usage that is
>>>>> using
>>>>> "chips" to mean an amount (undefined on the list) of chips.  So when
>>>>> someone asks for "2 chips" they are asking for "2 of the amount of
>>>>> chips
>>>>> for which you charge...".
>>>>>
>>>>> Your interpretation of "2 chips" only makes sense if, when customers
>>>>> asked for "chips", you presented them with one chip.  I doubt you'd
>>>>> have
>>>>> kept your job (or in some chippies your teeth) for long.
>>>>
>>>> Well the customer should have said 2 portions of chips in the first
>>>> place!
>>>
>>> Absolutely.  This is a contract in law, that requires to be expressed
>>> in clear and unambiguous terms.  I suggest also specifying the size
>>> of > the portion and the temperature at which it should be served.
>>
>>
>> Absolutely correct, a contract can be either in written form, in
>> spoken form or in implied form....
>>
>> So I had a verbal contract offered to me to supply just 2 chips, so I
>> created an implied action that I was accepting the verbally offered
>> contract by providing him with 2 chips on a sheet of paper....
>
> See you in court.
>
> In England a contract is not construed pedantically to achieve a bizarre
> result that benefits one awfully clever party.  It's construed "to
> determine what the parties meant by the language used, which involves
> ascertaining what a reasonable person would have understood the parties
> to have meant".  Here "the relevant reasonable person is one who has all
> the background knowledge which would reasonably have been available to
> the parties in the situation in which they were at the time of the
> contract."[1]
>
> I suppose you might just possible have a case if you could provide
> evidence that when asked for "1 chips" you provided a single chip, and
> this was well known to your regular customers.  Well, could you?
>
> And I have no idea what makes you think contracts are /required/ to be
> be expressed in clear and unambiguous terms. It's a good idea to do so.
> But few do in routine matters.  E.g. when did you last specify
> unambiguously what you wanted by way of "chips" - number, weight,
> variety of potato, oil, cooking temperature....?
>
>
>
> [1] quotes from Lord Clarke at 14 in the Supreme Court judgment in Rainy
> Day
> http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/50.html
>

I was once at my MIL's sister's house. she asked me how much pasta could
I eat and how did I like it and she had her hand in the pasta jar.

I said 120 grammes of pasta coooked in unsalted boiling water for 600
seconds to result in an al dente texture and 350 grammes of pasta sauce,
all mixed together and topped with parmigiano reggiano cheese.....

She shook her fist at me and teh MIL (who happened to be there too) took
over teh cooking.....

On 04/08/2023 18:13, SH wrote:
<snip>>
>
> I was once at my MIL's sister's house. she asked me how much pasta could
> I eat and how did I like it and she had her hand  in the pasta jar.
>
> I said 120 grammes of pasta coooked in unsalted boiling water for 600
> seconds to result in an al dente texture and 350 grammes of pasta sauce,
> all mixed together and topped with parmigiano reggiano cheese.....
>

Since you failed to specify the pasta was to be from the jar she had in
her hand I'd have been inclined to give you fresh pasta cooked to your
specification.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 04/08/2023 18:27, Robin wrote:
> On 04/08/2023 18:13, SH wrote:
> <snip>>
>>
>> I was once at my MIL's sister's house. she asked me how much pasta
>> could I eat and how did I like it and she had her hand  in the pasta jar.
>>
>> I said 120 grammes of pasta coooked in unsalted boiling water for 600
>> seconds to result in an al dente texture and 350 grammes of pasta
>> sauce, all mixed together and topped with parmigiano reggiano cheese.....
>>
>
>
> Since you failed to specify the pasta was to be from the jar she had in
> her hand I'd have been inclined to give you fresh pasta cooked to your
> specification.
>

fresh pasta cooked for 600 seconds would become semolina!

if it had been fresh pasta, it would have been 150 seconds to cook to Al
dente!

I knew that the family in questino never bought fresh pasta, its always
been dried pasta.

in any case, if it had been fresh pasta I would have said 80 of fresh
pasta as it is much more filling than dried pasta :-)

On 04/08/2023 16:12, nib wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 14:48:31 +0100, SH wrote:
>> On 04/08/2023 12:22, Scott wrote:
>>> On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 12:15:51 +0100, SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:
>>>> On 04/08/2023 11:57, Robin wrote:

>>>>> Chippies advertise a price for "chips".  In ordinary usage that is
>>>>> using "chips" to mean an amount (undefined on the list) of chips.  So
>>>>> when someone asks for "2 chips" they are asking for "2 of the amount
>>>>> of chips for which you charge...".
>>>>>
>>>>> Your interpretation of "2 chips" only makes sense if, when customers
>>>>> asked for "chips", you presented them with one chip.  I doubt you'd
>>>>> have kept your job (or in some chippies your teeth) for long.
>>>>
>>>> Well the customer should have said 2 portions of chips in the first
>>>> place!
>>>
>>> Absolutely. This is a contract in law, that requires to be expressed
>>> in clear and unambiguous terms. I suggest also specifying the size of
>>>> the portion and the temperature at which it should be served.
>>
>>
>> Absolutely correct, a contract can be either in written form, in spoken
>> form or in implied form....
>>
>> So I had a verbal contract offered to me to supply just 2 chips, so I
>> created an implied action that I was accepting the verbally offered
>> contract by providing him with 2 chips on a sheet of paper....
>
> So what would they have got for:
>
> "Two fish and chips"
>
> "Fish and chips twice"
>
> "Chips twice"

Greasy spoon cafes distinguish between double egg and chips and egg and
chips twice. Everyone knows what is meant.

--
Max Demian

Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote

> Is this the same company we knew as Wilkinson's?

Yep, they rebranded.