experience of returning camera to Best Buy

Tony Cooper writes:
"Common law", by definition, is unwritten. There is no law that is
the common law. The term refers to a system of laws based on case
law, previous rulings, and usage.

Written laws are "statute law". An act is only illegal if it is
prohibited by statute law.

That's not how it works. Case law (written decisions from appellate
courts) is also law.

When you are asked for a cite of the law, you are being asked to cite
the statute where the law was enacted. Absent a written law that
requires defective items to be returnable, a retailer need not accept
a defective item for return.

Now...where's your cite of a statutory law on this subject?

Something like that would be probably governed by the UCC, which is
statutory in (iirc) every state except Louisiana. However, a case
cite from an appropriate jurisdiction based on some other statute
would also be sufficient. IANAL and I'm sure a lawyer could explain
this better than I can.

On 15 Jan 2006 17:04:14 -0800, Paul Rubin
wrote:

Tony Cooper writes:
"Common law", by definition, is unwritten. There is no law that is
the common law. The term refers to a system of laws based on case
law, previous rulings, and usage.

Written laws are "statute law". An act is only illegal if it is
prohibited by statute law.

That's not how it works. Case law (written decisions from appellate
courts) is also law.

Yes, and case law is based on past decisions which were rulings on
cases involving statute law. The decision cited says that this
particular law included this or that or was meant to include this or
that. Case law refers to precedent set by earlier rulings and allows
interpretation of the application of the law. First, you must have a
law.

There is no such thing a common law. It is a system, not a law.












--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Tony Cooper wrote
Paul Rubin wrote
Tony Cooper writes

"Common law", by definition, is unwritten. There is no
law that is the common law. The term refers to a system
of laws based on case law, previous rulings, and usage.

Written laws are "statute law". An act is
only illegal if it is prohibited by statute law.

That's not how it works. Case law (written
decisions from appellate courts) is also law.

Yes, and case law is based on past decisions
which were rulings on cases involving statute law.

Not necessarily, particularly in the past.

The decision cited says that this particular law included
this or that or was meant to include this or that.

Wrong again.

Case law refers to precedent set by earlier
rulings and allows interpretation of the application
of the law. First, you must have a law.

Doesnt have to be statute law.

There is no such thing a common law.

No one even mentioned 'a common law'

It is a system, not a law.

Duh. Pity no one even mentioned 'a common law'

Rod Speed wrote:
Tony Cooper wrote
Paul Rubin wrote
Tony Cooper writes

"Common law", by definition, is unwritten. There is no
law that is the common law. The term refers to a system
of laws based on case law, previous rulings, and usage.

Written laws are "statute law". An act is
only illegal if it is prohibited by statute law.

That's not how it works. Case law (written
decisions from appellate courts) is also law.

Yes, and case law is based on past decisions
which were rulings on cases involving statute law.

Not necessarily, particularly in the past.

The decision cited says that this particular law included
this or that or was meant to include this or that.

Wrong again.

Case law refers to precedent set by earlier
rulings and allows interpretation of the application
of the law. First, you must have a law.

Doesnt have to be statute law.

There is no such thing a common law.

No one even mentioned 'a common law'

It is a system, not a law.

Duh. Pity no one even mentioned 'a common law'


http://dictionary.law.com/definition...d=%7C%7C%7C%7C



--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell

wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tony Cooper wrote
Paul Rubin wrote
Tony Cooper writes

"Common law", by definition, is unwritten. There is no
law that is the common law. The term refers to a system
of laws based on case law, previous rulings, and usage.

Written laws are "statute law". An act is
only illegal if it is prohibited by statute law.

That's not how it works. Case law (written
decisions from appellate courts) is also law.

Yes, and case law is based on past decisions
which were rulings on cases involving statute law.

Not necessarily, particularly in the past.

The decision cited says that this particular law included
this or that or was meant to include this or that.

Wrong again.

Case law refers to precedent set by earlier
rulings and allows interpretation of the application
of the law. First, you must have a law.

Doesnt have to be statute law.

There is no such thing a common law.

No one even mentioned 'a common law'

It is a system, not a law.

Duh. Pity no one even mentioned 'a common law'

http://dictionary.law.com/definition...d=%7C%7C%7C%7C

What I said in more fancy words.

And its got a massive inconsistency on the 'unwritten' too.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:15:03 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tony Cooper wrote
Paul Rubin wrote
Tony Cooper writes

"Common law", by definition, is unwritten. There is no
law that is the common law. The term refers to a system
of laws based on case law, previous rulings, and usage.

Written laws are "statute law". An act is
only illegal if it is prohibited by statute law.

That's not how it works. Case law (written
decisions from appellate courts) is also law.

Yes, and case law is based on past decisions
which were rulings on cases involving statute law.

Not necessarily, particularly in the past.

The decision cited says that this particular law included
this or that or was meant to include this or that.

Wrong again.

Case law refers to precedent set by earlier
rulings and allows interpretation of the application
of the law. First, you must have a law.

Doesnt have to be statute law.

There is no such thing a common law.

No one even mentioned 'a common law'

It is a system, not a law.

Duh. Pity no one even mentioned 'a common law'

http://dictionary.law.com/definition...d=%7C%7C%7C%7C

What I said in more fancy words.

And its got a massive inconsistency on the 'unwritten' too.

Not when you understand "codified".



--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Tony Cooper wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tony Cooper wrote
Paul Rubin wrote
Tony Cooper writes

"Common law", by definition, is unwritten. There is no
law that is the common law. The term refers to a system
of laws based on case law, previous rulings, and usage.

Written laws are "statute law". An act is
only illegal if it is prohibited by statute law.

That's not how it works. Case law (written
decisions from appellate courts) is also law.

Yes, and case law is based on past decisions
which were rulings on cases involving statute law.

Not necessarily, particularly in the past.

The decision cited says that this particular law included
this or that or was meant to include this or that.

Wrong again.

Case law refers to precedent set by earlier
rulings and allows interpretation of the application
of the law. First, you must have a law.

Doesnt have to be statute law.

There is no such thing a common law.

No one even mentioned 'a common law'

It is a system, not a law.

Duh. Pity no one even mentioned 'a common law'

http://dictionary.law.com/definition...d=%7C%7C%7C%7C

What I said in more fancy words.

And its got a massive inconsistency on the 'unwritten' too.

Not when you understand "codified".

Wrong, as always.

And the written law you want is the UCC in the US anyway.

In article , Rod Speed wrote:
Tony Cooper wrote
Paul Rubin wrote
Tony Cooper writes

"Common law", by definition, is unwritten. There is no
law that is the common law. The term refers to a system
of laws based on case law, previous rulings, and usage.

Written laws are "statute law". An act is
only illegal if it is prohibited by statute law.

That's not how it works. Case law (written
decisions from appellate courts) is also law.

Yes, and case law is based on past decisions
which were rulings on cases involving statute law.

Not necessarily, particularly in the past.

The decision cited says that this particular law included
this or that or was meant to include this or that.

Wrong again.

Case law refers to precedent set by earlier
rulings and allows interpretation of the application
of the law. First, you must have a law.

Doesnt have to be statute law.

There is no such thing a common law.

No one even mentioned 'a common law'

It is a system, not a law.

Duh. Pity no one even mentioned 'a common law'

You brought up "common law" in message .

Now are you going to say that this new thing "a common law" first
mentioned by you is not the same as the "common law" first mentioned by
you? Or mention some new point so that you can call some response
irrelevant? How soon for you to call people names? How soon before you
say "in spades" with a semi-sidetrack that you would find a way to call
irrelvant if done by someone other than you?
How soon after before all you can manage is something along the lines
of:
"can't BS its way out of its predicament", or:
"Some terminal ****wit... which is all it can ever manage", maybe with
disparaging of known or suspected present or past employment.

In article , Rod Speed wrote:
Tony Cooper wrote
Paul Rubin wrote
Tony Cooper writes

"Common law", by definition, is unwritten. There is no
law that is the common law. The term refers to a system
of laws based on case law, previous rulings, and usage.

Written laws are "statute law". An act is
only illegal if it is prohibited by statute law.

That's not how it works. Case law (written
decisions from appellate courts) is also law.

Yes, and case law is based on past decisions
which were rulings on cases involving statute law.

Not necessarily, particularly in the past.

And if not statute law, what else? Common law? (See below)

The decision cited says that this particular law included
this or that or was meant to include this or that.

Wrong again.

Case law refers to precedent set by earlier
rulings and allows interpretation of the application
of the law. First, you must have a law.

Doesnt have to be statute law.

There is no such thing a common law.

No one even mentioned 'a common law'

If neither statute law nor common law, then what else?

It is a system, not a law.

Duh. Pity no one even mentioned 'a common law'

You sure brought up "common law" in message
.

(If you evaded my cancel to my response where I boggled the message ID,
that is to be ignored.)

How soon before you find some way to say that "a common law" is not the
same as "common law" - both of which were introduced to this thread by
you?

Or are you going to do what I know you did at least once before - accuse
your opponent of falling for what you called bait along the lines of a
dead whale?

How soon before you raise some semi-sidetrack so you can say "in
spades", but would call irrelevant if raised by someone else?

How soon before you say something along the lines of "even you should
be able to BS your way out better than that"?

How soon do you resort to calling names?

How soon before you resort to something along the lines of "some
terminal ****wit"..."which is all it can ever manage", maybe along with
disparagement of known or suspected present or past employment?

And no, I will not followup your arguments to the point of reams being
flushed and then one of your predictable endgames.

- Don Klipstein )

Don Klipstein wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Tony Cooper wrote
Paul Rubin wrote
Tony Cooper writes

"Common law", by definition, is unwritten. There is no
law that is the common law. The term refers to a system
of laws based on case law, previous rulings, and usage.

Written laws are "statute law". An act is
only illegal if it is prohibited by statute law.

That's not how it works. Case law (written
decisions from appellate courts) is also law.

Yes, and case law is based on past decisions
which were rulings on cases involving statute law.

Not necessarily, particularly in the past.

And if not statute law,

It is actually with what is being discussed, the UCC specifically.

what else? Common law?

On some of the detail, like a refund instead of an
exchange with goods that arent of merchantable quality.

(See below)

Completely useless.

The decision cited says that this particular law included
this or that or was meant to include this or that.

Wrong again.

Case law refers to precedent set by earlier
rulings and allows interpretation of the application
of the law. First, you must have a law.

Doesnt have to be statute law.

There is no such thing a common law.

No one even mentioned 'a common law'

If neither statute law nor common law,

Never said that. Concentrate on A COMMON LAW.

then what else?

It is a system, not a law.

Duh. Pity no one even mentioned 'a common law'

You sure brought up "common law" in message
.

Yep, and by definition thats got a problem with a cite.

(If you evaded my cancel to my response where
I boggled the message ID, that is to be ignored.)

God knows what this is about.

How soon before you find some way to say that "a common law"
is not the same as "common law" - both of which were introduced
to this thread by you?

Wrong, as always. *I* never ever used the phrase
"a common law" except to point out to Cooper that
no one had used that phrase in this thread except him.

Or are you going to do what I know you did at least
once before - accuse your opponent of falling for
what you called bait along the lines of a dead whale?

Nope.

How soon before you raise some semi-sidetrack so you can say
"in spades", but would call irrelevant if raised by someone else?

How soon before you say something along the lines of "even
you should be able to BS your way out better than that"?

How soon do you resort to calling names?

How soon before you resort to something along the lines of "some
terminal ****wit"..."which is all it can ever manage", maybe along with
disparagement of known or suspected present or past employment?

I'll just let you make a VERY spectacular fool of yourself instead.

And no, I will not followup your arguments to the point of reams
being flushed and then one of your predictable endgames.

There you go again.