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

Whether statement could be construed as misleading ?

Whether statement could be construed as misleading ?

Postby iwanttoaskaquestion » Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:36 pm

I want to ask opinion as to whether or not a statement could be construed as misleading ?

If one party to a proceedings states "The Opponent has been using the XXXXX name
since 2009" . END QUOTE Now the Opponent is a Limited Company and is the only
stated Party as Opponent. My question is , for that statement NOT to be misleading
must the Limited Company (Opponent) have actually used the name, OR could it be
argued that one of the directors had used the name and passed the rights to the Ltd
company ?
Last edited by iwanttoaskaquestion on Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
iwanttoaskaquestion
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 4:46 pm

Re: Whether statement could be construed as misleading ?

Postby dls » Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:38 pm

Impossible to answer on those terms. Yes it might, and it might equally might not be.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12513
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Whether statement could be construed as misleading ?

Postby iwanttoaskaquestion » Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:41 pm

dls wrote:Impossible to answer on those terms. Yes it might, and it might equally might not be.


Alright. So let us say the Company did not exist until 2018 ,could the statement " The Opponent has
been using the name since 2009" End Quote be misleading ? IN short can the failures be made up by
such a statement without any problem with the Judge do you think ?. Of course no one yet knows the
company didn't exist because it has not been plead.
iwanttoaskaquestion
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 4:46 pm

Re: Whether statement could be construed as misleading ?

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:29 pm

Sorry, but there is plainly a backstory to this. You are leading us into giving the answer that you want to hear.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6534
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: Whether statement could be construed as misleading ?

Postby iwanttoaskaquestion » Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:40 pm

Smouldering Stoat wrote:Sorry, but there is plainly a backstory to this. You are leading us into giving the answer that you want to hear.


Yes sorry, not deliberately but as it is "live" I don't want to prejudice anything
in advance. Let detail it like this then;

Fred Bloggs alleges he has rights in a name since 2009
Fred Bloggs and several others in 2018 start a Ltd Company
The Ltd Company, in its sole name, then starts a proceeding against
ANOTHER . The Ltd Company then claims IT has been using said
name since 2009, no mention of Fred Bloggs. This is claimed
a good number of times with no mention of Fred Bloggs.
The claims state the Ltd Company has used the name since 2008
,2012 etc etc WHEN it did NOT even exist.

Would THOSE statements be misleading ?.
iwanttoaskaquestion
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 4:46 pm

Re: Whether statement could be construed as misleading ?

Postby atticus » Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:58 pm

Don't get hung up on whether the statement is "misleading". The question that you should be looking at is whether it can be proved or disproved. If the latter, what is the effect on the proceedings?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20649
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Whether statement could be construed as misleading ?

Postby iwanttoaskaquestion » Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:34 pm

atticus wrote:Don't get hung up on whether the statement is "misleading". The question that you should be looking at is whether it can be proved or disproved. If the latter, what is the effect on the proceedings?


Noted ,and yes I will. The fact is that it can 100% be proven that the company did not exist until January 2018. That is not a
problem. It is an overseas company represented by a UK Attorney. They have sworn that the LTD Company has traded since
2009 or earlier several times at least in a statement filed with the Court. IF I do, as I say I can 100% .show the company
did NOT exist until X date then what effect will that have ?. Therefore the named Party cannot sustain its case.

Thanks
iwanttoaskaquestion
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 4:46 pm

Re: Whether statement could be construed as misleading ?

Postby shootist » Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:00 am

Just taking a bit of a guess here, but I think it possible the company could justify it's statement like this. A sole trader trades under the name of "Cronks Bits". After a few years a limited company "Fertig Ltd" is formed to take over that business. I believe that Fertig Ltd could conduct business as "Fertig Ltd Trading as Cronks Bits". The limited company having acquired the rights to "Cronks Bits" as part of the take over. I think there may be other ways this could happen. Limited companies have been formed for the sole purpose of protecting a trading name.
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." MLK.
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3817
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Whether statement could be construed as misleading ?

Postby atticus » Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:02 am

Indeed,and such a scenario had occurred to me. But then the facts should be presented in that way.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20649
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Whether statement could be construed as misleading ?

Postby iwanttoaskaquestion » Wed Apr 18, 2018 2:26 pm

shootist wrote:Just taking a bit of a guess here, but I think it possible the company could justify it's statement like this. A sole trader trades under the name of "Cronks Bits". After a few years a limited company "Fertig Ltd" is formed to take over that business. I believe that Fertig Ltd could conduct business as "Fertig Ltd Trading as Cronks Bits". The limited company having acquired the rights to "Cronks Bits" as part of the take over. I think there may be other ways this could happen. Limited companies have been formed for the sole purpose of protecting a trading name.


Yes agreed that COULD be the case, but they have not said anything about that at all. They have not explained so we shall see
what tyhey say next, but yes I agree could be that will be the reason/excuse ,but they will have to show that.
iwanttoaskaquestion
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 4:46 pm

Next

Return to Litigation Practice

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests