From webstump at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Thu May 22 11:33:39 2025 Return-path: To: hex at ..seen.ac.am Subject: Re: Re: Solicitor prepayment for conveyancing estate sale References: <5nt1tCF3wtKoFAu9@perry.uk> <100l42m$2uvjd$4@dont-email.me> <6271037744.2caa8e0d@uninhabited.net> <100mmtb$3ccbn$2@dont-email.me> In-Reply-To: Reply-To: matthewv+ulmtestmod at ..riolis.greenend.org.uk Errors-To: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk X-Webstump-Event: [174790383418042] reject notnew Message-Id: From: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 11:33:36 +0100 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by a moderator. This post contains insufficient new material. Similar points have been made already in this discussion, which is in danger of becoming too repetitive. The group charter and moderation policy can be found at https://uklegal.weebly.com/ Disputed moderation decisions can be discussed in the newsgroup uk.net.news.moderation ============================================ Full text of your message follows > From webstump@chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu May 22 09:50:34 2025 > Return-path: > Envelope-to: webstump+?@slimy.greenend.org.uk > Received-SPF: pass (mailhub-cam-d.mythic-beasts.com: domain of uni-berlin.de designates 130.133.4.89 as permitted sender) client-ip=130.133.4.89; envelope-from=mod-submit@uni-berlin.de; helo=outpost5.zedat.fu-berlin.de; > X-STUMP-Warning-0: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-1: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-2: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-3: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uni-berlin.de; s=fub01; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Date:Subject:From:To:Sender: Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=FiBV5QmVgMk933/H+2wXm3ZIS46mDAIQUOXtUs7HqU8=; t=1747903830; x=1748508630; b=NXqU5h+2U50MkOb > From: Norman Wells > Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated > Subject: Re: Solicitor prepayment for conveyancing estate sale > Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 09:50:27 +0100 > Message-ID: > References: <5nt1tCF3wtKoFAu9@perry.uk> > <100l42m$2uvjd$4@dont-email.me> > <6271037744.2caa8e0d@uninhabited.net> > <100mmtb$3ccbn$2@dont-email.me> > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > X-Orig-X-Trace: individual.net WeVfsFoIZwSqg4EjsHA0lgq4Numiu73FfPewBxRNjh/htHqpHf > Cancel-Lock: sha1:CGCfHhiLPK2z30SxswWpPckt6MU= sha256:M0oHPn4TEkJm7iGPIdJFu6+dutajCehGqO/+DOJuZ4I= > User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird > Content-Language: en-GB > X-Originating-IP: 130.133.4.5 > X-ZEDAT-Hint: RO > X-Mythic-Source-External: YES > X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 29 > X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.9 > Delivered-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-BlackCat-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-Mythic-Originator: uid-1081-on-lynx.mythic-beasts.com > X-STUMP-Warning-4: Unfolded headers Received: Received: Received: Received: Received: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: > > On 22/05/2025 09:23, GB wrote: > > On 21/05/2025 22:53, Norman Wells wrote: > > > >> What they should be doing in my view is find a seller entitled and > >> able to sell the property.  Which the person instructing them isn't as > >> she doesn't actually own it. > >> > >> Why is that not fraud by false representation contrary to Section 2 of > >> the Fraud Act 2006? > > > > Because there's no dishonest intent? > > If she doesn't own it, yet is purporting to be able to sell it, how is > that *not* dishonest? > > > Because the sale particulars won't promise a particular completion date? > > Why is that relevant? > > > Because the person instructing the estate agents may have disclosed > > their position fully? > > I don't think estate agents, who are actually agents for the seller, > knowingly accept instructions from anyone who isn't the owner of what is > being sold. Do you think they would if I walked in and said I wanted > your house put on the market? > > I suspect any contract would warrant that the supposed seller is > actually the owner. > > > And, the estate agents may explain that to potential buyers? > > I doubt in this scenario that they would know. > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEfWu6wfyjzX88oocanSrwpvmn4x4FAmgu/YAACgkQnSrwpvmn 4x7mjwf+IKwcU+4kEms/MrtY0dzYaoGFstTF3U1699jK2lHXciC6PngJjXMcK1nP tRZthRibGr3G1SbAO9QYPjtvFl3zwOY54ifkLvGsmEZuzSPU1XFxFzWoiEW6IIr7 YB0Kb7OZfh/ooVuo9uaXizfJzo29bS7AQkBJB1bTwd645SvB6j96OvA6vmwUZVAM L2bpjgArFbt/zrRXLnuf3sKG9s2gzP51+L9bbwWHkDSYFqzrbbxe294CXdaezuym OwSKNvgZVNVBunrP5emOE/Od+Q4p4v7FvY5o0v0u5iVLsIoE6fiqZURoPjstDPl5 XP6TUSA6kzfaT72nbdRU6Xef3rNQUA== =WFrd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----