From the BBC:
A man has been warned after he dialled 999 to complain about a prostitute's looks after meeting her. West Midlands Police said they were contacted by the caller who said he "wished to report her for breaching the Sale of Goods Act"...
Despite the man refusing to give his details, police were able to identify him and have sent him a letter warning him about his actions. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 gives consumers legal rights, stipulating goods which are sold must be of satisfactory quality, be fit for purpose and must match the seller's description.
Duh.
Not only could he have been done for 'soliciting for sex' and 'wasting police time' (as the article says), but his first big mistake was referring to the Sale of Goods Act 1979. A prostitute provides services so the relevant legislation is the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.
His second big mistake is not realising that there is a world of difference between criminal offences (which are a police matter) and purely contractual or civil matters (where you have to take the person to court yourself).
There’s a Surprise
12 hours ago
7 comments:
SSGA82 creates the implied term that services must be provided with 'reasonable skill, reasonable care and at a reasonable cost. There is no implied term that they must be 'as described' - he would have to rely on common law, for example he was induced to contract on the basis that she misrepresented her looks. Hard to argue if he'd still paid after meeting her.
Having said that, you can't have a contract founded on illegality and without a contract to be induced into or to have implied terms he'd have to rely on the tort of deceit and simply claim his fuel / bus fare (presuming he didn't pay after seeing her).
I think a district judge would find some kind of latin phrase, based on maxims of equity or some other medieval bullshit to dismiss his claim and award costs against him.
SL, true, but if she were ugly enough, a "reasonable cost" might be £ zero.
Suing her for "misrepresentation" might be another good idea. Even if the contract is illegal, she would still be committing some sort of tort if she advertised herself as good looking (with the hope of getting money) when she wasn't.
G, has this set your Stereotype Alarm Bells ringing?
There is no enforceable contract. Agreements for certain "immoral" activities, of which prostitution is one, are not enforceable through the courts.
They are, of course, enforceable against the punter provided the girl has a sufficiently brutal pimp.
The tort of deceit won't work either. In order to have a claim you will have to have been misled into parting with your readies.
When you meet a wrinkly old Tom who described herself inaccurately you have a choice. Either you pay and play, or you keep your wallet in your trousers and look for something more appealing.
Take the first course and you haven't been misled because you knew the true position before you paid.
Take the second course and you've lost no money so there's nothing to sue over.
Unless you paid in advance by plastic or PayPal, in which case you're so stupid you've got everything you deserve.
TFB, we are all agreed there is no enforceable contract.
But surely that can't mean that people who perpetrate other frauds in association with prostitution can always get of scot free?
Because there are people who are stupid and might "deserve it" - what if I set up a scheme whereby I take money off such people, am I really safe from any sort of legal action, either criminal or civil?
Because there are people who are stupid and might "deserve it" - what if I set up a scheme whereby I take money off such people …
There are a couple of relevant precedents here:
Redgrave v Hurd (1881)
A solicitor (Redgrave) wished to take a partner and negotiated with Hurd. Redgrave told Hurd that the income of the practice was £300-£400 per annum and Hurd was shown papers purporting to prove this. If Hurd had carefully read these documents he would have seen that the practice was virtually worthless. He did not read them but the court nevertheless held the misrepresentation to be actionable, and the plaintiff's action for breach of contract failed. It was held that it made no difference that a prudent purchaser would have discovered the true position.
Museprime Properties v Adhill Properties [1990] 36 EG 114
It was held that it is no defence to argue that a reasonable person would not have been influenced by the misrepresentation. If the claimant was induced into the contract via false statements then there is an actionable misrepresentation.
Of course the most profitable, relevant scam is setting up a recruitment agency for ‘male escorts’ or ‘adult models’ and taking large upfront fees from the gullible in return for advertising their services on a tacky website with password restricted access.
There is a loophole in the law that prevents recruitment agents charging upfront fees, and due to the nature of the business (and politics) the Police / Trading Standards are more unlikely to investigate you than if you were running a mortgage fraud or clocking cars.
SL, thanks for input, but I'm not sure that answers the question.
Clearly, becoming a partner in a firm is perfectly legal, it would have been (or is) a binding contract, so you can sue for breach thereof.
But what happens if Redgrave had been a prostitute and charged Hurd, a fellow prostitute, an up front fee for going into partnership (e.g. to cater for men who like threesomes) and then done a bunk with the cash?
That is a contract which vaguely relates to prostitution, so could Hurd (the prostitue) have sued Redgrave (the prostitute)?
clearly, the real case was Redgrave suing Hurd for later changing his mind (and not Hurd suing Redgrave for being a lying bastard), which makes it more complicated.
Post a Comment