Cyclone   10 #2317 Posted July 12, 2019 That's still a terrible argument for removing mature trees for no good reason. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
dave_the_m   61 #2318 Posted July 12, 2019 15 minutes ago, makapaka said:  What happens when the 100T tree dies and the replacement tree never existed? When the 100T tree dies, I would hope that the council will plant a sapling that will in time grow to 100T Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Guest makapaka   #2319 Posted July 12, 2019 1 hour ago, Cyclone said: That's still a terrible argument for removing mature trees for no good reason. In isolation the argument would be yes.  But in terms of the overall impact of replacing ornamental trees on inner city streets it should be considered. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #2320 Posted July 12, 2019 You are making that argument in isolation in an attempt to justify the tree felling that took place in order to make the contract cheaper for Amey. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Guest makapaka   #2321 Posted July 12, 2019 7 hours ago, Cyclone said: You are making that argument in isolation in an attempt to justify the tree felling that took place in order to make the contract cheaper for Amey. No you assume that every comment I make on the subject is in support of amey and the council. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #2322 Posted July 13, 2019 It's the way that you keep finding terrible arguments to support the removal of trees, or at least to suggest that it's not so bad. How can that be anything other than in support of what was done, which happened to be something that you defended for, well, 194 pages approx. On 17/12/2017 at 16:28, makapaka said:  Penalty clauses in contract law aren’t enforcable - so there won’t be any in the contract between the council and amey.  Next unsupported conspiracy? Was this your first contribution to the thread, back in Dec 17. Turned out to be wrong didn't it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Guest makapaka   #2323 Posted July 13, 2019 1 hour ago, Cyclone said: It's the way that you keep finding terrible arguments to support the removal of trees, or at least to suggest that it's not so bad. How can that be anything other than in support of what was done, which happened to be something that you defended for, well, 194 pages approx. Was this your first contribution to the thread, back in Dec 17. Turned out to be wrong didn't it. No. Unless you’ve established that penalty clauses are now enforceable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
dave_the_m   61 #2324 Posted July 13, 2019 46 minutes ago, makapaka said: No. Unless you’ve established that penalty clauses are now enforceable. Oh no not this again. When the word "penalty" is being used in a strict and narrow legal sense, penalties weren't enforceable - until the Supreme Court decided they sometimes were, in PE vs Beavis, 2015. However, in the colloquial sense used in everyday life (such as people posting on this forum), "penalty" means something in a contract which says that if you don't perform to the levels specified in the contract, you may get paid less, or you may have to pay for remedial work, or the contract may be terminated without cost to the injured party, etc, etc.  So when someone on this forum talks about Amey (or SCC) paying penalties, they clearly mean it in the colloquial sense. To insist on the narrow legal meaning is unhelpful sophistlry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Guest makapaka   #2325 Posted July 13, 2019 1 hour ago, dave_the_m said: Oh no not this again. When the word "penalty" is being used in a strict and narrow legal sense, penalties weren't enforceable - until the Supreme Court decided they sometimes were, in PE vs Beavis, 2015. However, in the colloquial sense used in everyday life (such as people posting on this forum), "penalty" means something in a contract which says that if you don't perform to the levels specified in the contract, you may get paid less, or you may have to pay for remedial work, or the contract may be terminated without cost to the injured party, etc, etc.  So when someone on this forum talks about Amey (or SCC) paying penalties, they clearly mean it in the colloquial sense. To insist on the narrow legal meaning is unhelpful sophistlry. Whatever. I didn’t bring it up.  I was just explaining why it was incorrect to say I was wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #2326 Posted July 14, 2019 (edited) On 13/07/2019 at 09:56, makapaka said: No. Unless you’ve established that penalty clauses are now enforceable. I'm fairly sure that you actually reversed your position on that at least once.  You called it an unsupported conspiracy, but the council confirmed multiple times that they were going to have to pay Amey extra for Amey failing to complete the contract on time even though the delay wasn't down to any action or inaction of the council. You went to some length to then explain why this was entirely fair if I remember. Edited July 14, 2019 by Cyclone Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Guest makapaka   #2327 Posted July 14, 2019 39 minutes ago, Cyclone said: I'm fairly sure that you actually reversed your position on that at least once.  You called it an unsupported conspiracy, but the council confirmed multiple times that they were going to have to pay Amey extra for Amey failing to complete the contract on time even though the delay wasn't down to any action or inaction of the council. You went to some length to then explain why this was entirely fair if I remember. No. You just never understood what I was talking about and dumbed the discussion down by just trying to make it about me supporting the council.  i don’t intend going through it all again either - it was boring by the end. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #2328 Posted July 15, 2019 I understood what you were claiming throughout, it did appear at times like you didn't understand what we were discussing though, for example when you claimed that we'd not seen the contract, but what you actually meant was that you'd not bothered to look at it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...