Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

set off

Re: set off

Postby atticus » Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:41 pm

But you dealt with that in the paragraph I referred to! I suggest you go back and re-read your admirable analysis, with particular reference to legal set off.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20640
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: set off

Postby preacherman » Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:46 pm

atticus wrote:But you dealt with that in the paragraph I referred to! I suggest you go back and re-read your admirable analysis, with particular reference to legal set off.


I should become a barrister! you can get back to your mandolin now for a bit! Practice makes perfect.
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: set off

Postby atticus » Tue Mar 06, 2018 7:10 am

As you are finding with litigation!
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20640
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: set off

Postby preacherman » Tue Mar 06, 2018 8:28 am

atticus wrote:As you are finding with litigation!


yes. I have a friend who likes to build guitars. 'Abatement or set off'. I am confused now as to what law the judge applied. D argued work in areas A was defective, whereas my claim invoice was for area B, judge used the term set off a number of times when discounting work in area A against payment of my invoice for area B.She also said there could not be a positive credit claim against me by D, it could only be used to reduce payment of my invoice.

there was no argument that the work for the actual invoice being claimed was defective.(non was defective but presently looking to see what law was applied).
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: set off

Postby atticus » Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:08 am

What order did the judge make? You describe set off, being a reduction in liability to you by reason of a cross claim against you.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20640
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: set off

Postby preacherman » Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:12 pm

atticus wrote:What order did the judge make? You describe set off, being a reduction in liability to you by reason of a cross claim against you.


I am not sure I understand fully the term cross claim. There was no claim or counter-claim, there was only a defence to my claim.I have not received the order yet.

The Judge said that D was setting off work in the kitchen paid to another against my invoice.

D implied I 'damaged' the kitchen, she had a witness statement from another builder also with some invoices.(all he did in reality was take over where I left off) The Judge used the term set off a number of times, and was looking at the third party invoice,to see what work he did in relation to the kitchen, and if that amounted to a debt towards me...so Judge was trying to ascertain an alleged debt now due,due to 'damage' (she said normally she would have an expert witness, she struggled to know the difference between a unit and a door) and she set it off to reduce my claim to zero, my invoice in the claim was not for the kitchen work.
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: set off

Postby atticus » Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:41 pm

The defence appears to have been, at least in part, that you have a liability to the Defendant. As a defence, set off can be used to reduce or extinguish a claim.

This appears to be another case to add to your list of unsuccessful court actions. Practice does not always make perfect, it seems.

From what I can glean, the Judge made a decision that it was within her powers to make. I am not sure that questioning the theoretical basis of set off will get you anywhere. With hindsight, which is a wonderful thing, you should have dealt with the claims that you were liable to pay the Defendant money.

But the judge has ruled against you, so that is that.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20640
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: set off

Postby preacherman » Tue Mar 06, 2018 2:19 pm

atticus wrote:The defence appears to have been, at least in part, that you have a liability to the Defendant. As a defence, set off can be used to reduce or extinguish a claim.

WOULD THAT NOT DEPEND ON A VARIETY OF MATTERS, AND SET OFF REQUIRES A DEBT TO BE EASILY ASCERTAINABLE AND DUE BEFORE PROCEEDINGS COMMENCE TO BE USED AS A SET OFF?

This appears to be another case to add to your list of unsuccessful court actions. Practice does not always make perfect, it seems.

DEPENDS WE SHALL SEE ON APPEAL

From what I can glean, the Judge made a decision that it was within her powers to make. I am not sure that questioning the theoretical basis of set off will get you anywhere. With hindsight, which is a wonderful thing, you should have dealt with the claims that you were liable to pay the Defendant money.

THERE WERE NO CLAIMS MADE AGAINST ME, OR REQUESTS TO FIX ALLEGED DAMAGE, IT WAS ALLEGATIONS IN A DEFENCE

But the judge has ruled against you, so that is that.


THERE IS AN APPEAL PROCESS THAT`S WHY I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND SET OFF, OR IF THE JUDGE APPLIED ABATEMENT, AND THE DIFFERENCES SORRY ABOUT CAPITALS BUT FORGOT HOW TO USE QUOTES HERE!
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: set off

Postby preacherman » Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:48 pm

any idea what this means in plain English:

depending on the facts, this difference may be determined by comparing the market value of what has been constructed with what ought to have been built, or by reference to the cost of remedial works (but not the cost of the remedial works themselves);

from here
https://www.out-law.com/en/topics/proje ... -projects/
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: set off

Postby preacherman » Mon Mar 12, 2018 6:23 pm

atticus wrote:As you are finding with litigation!


still dont understand why you can only refer to the costs but not the costs, does not make sense?

n some cases, diminution in value may be determined by comparing the current market value of that which has been constructed with the market value which it ought to have had. In other cases, diminution in value may be determined by reference to the cost of remedial works. In the latter situation, however, the cost of remedial works does not become the measure of abatement. It is merely a factor which may be used either in isolation or in conjunction with other factors for determining diminution in value.
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Litigation Practice

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests