silvermyn
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,612
👍🏻 781
April 2008
|
Banksy Goldfish, by silvermyn on Dec 22, 2020 11:56:38 GMT 1, I understand Banksy needing to keep his team happy, but I wonder how against trading standards GDP is acting. Surely you cannot run operate a retail business that's full of false information and back handed selling? I suspect GDP have broken quite a few rules under UK trading standards, which are normally pretty tough.
The issue is one of publishing misleading information.
All the products were meant to be available to the public via a lottery/competition question. Some, but not all, limited edition prints and relatively lower valued items (mugs, T-shirts, cushions etc) have been allocated to members of the public via the lottery. The higher valued editioned originals appear to have been sold to mates, VIPs or existing customers only, contrary to the terms of the "so called" draw IMHO.
The fact that there was no chance of winning the Goldfish Bowl or Tony Tiger wasn't made clear on the GDP site. A lot of people who followed the entry rules, myself included, wasted their single entry on an item that simply wasn't going to be allocated to a member of the public.
No matter, life goes on. A lucky few (members of the public) did get a life changing prize, and the wealthy (VIPs and existing customers) keep on getting wealthier. I suppose high networth collectors don't need to sell so Banksy's art doesn't end up flooding the market. That has to be a good thing for both owners and the artist. Just remember if there is another draw in the future with a single entry per household and you want a chance of winning (however remote), it's probably best to target a lower value item.
I understand Banksy needing to keep his team happy, but I wonder how against trading standards GDP is acting. Surely you cannot run operate a retail business that's full of false information and back handed selling? I suspect GDP have broken quite a few rules under UK trading standards, which are normally pretty tough. The issue is one of publishing misleading information. All the products were meant to be available to the public via a lottery/competition question. Some, but not all, limited edition prints and relatively lower valued items (mugs, T-shirts, cushions etc) have been allocated to members of the public via the lottery. The higher valued editioned originals appear to have been sold to mates, VIPs or existing customers only, contrary to the terms of the "so called" draw IMHO. The fact that there was no chance of winning the Goldfish Bowl or Tony Tiger wasn't made clear on the GDP site. A lot of people who followed the entry rules, myself included, wasted their single entry on an item that simply wasn't going to be allocated to a member of the public. No matter, life goes on. A lucky few (members of the public) did get a life changing prize, and the wealthy (VIPs and existing customers) keep on getting wealthier. I suppose high networth collectors don't need to sell so Banksy's art doesn't end up flooding the market. That has to be a good thing for both owners and the artist. Just remember if there is another draw in the future with a single entry per household and you want a chance of winning (however remote), it's probably best to target a lower value item. |
|
trax51
New Member
🗨️ 388
👍🏻 402
July 2011
|
Banksy Goldfish, by trax51 on Dec 22, 2020 12:14:02 GMT 1, . The higher valued editioned originals appear to have been sold to mates, VIPs or existing customers only, contrary to the terms of the "so called" draw IMHO. The fact that there was no chance of winning the Goldfish Bowl or Tony Tiger wasn't made clear on the GDP site. A lot of people who followed the entry rules, myself included, wasted their single entry on an item that simply wasn't going to be allocated to a member of the public. No matter, life goes on. . Can you elaborate on your sources / background ? How do you know that fish bowl and Tony couldn’t be won by normal member of the public ? Really looking forward for your answer...
. The higher valued editioned originals appear to have been sold to mates, VIPs or existing customers only, contrary to the terms of the "so called" draw IMHO. The fact that there was no chance of winning the Goldfish Bowl or Tony Tiger wasn't made clear on the GDP site. A lot of people who followed the entry rules, myself included, wasted their single entry on an item that simply wasn't going to be allocated to a member of the public. No matter, life goes on. . Can you elaborate on your sources / background ? How do you know that fish bowl and Tony couldn’t be won by normal member of the public ? Really looking forward for your answer... |
|
silvermyn
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,612
👍🏻 781
April 2008
|
Banksy Goldfish, by silvermyn on Dec 22, 2020 12:35:03 GMT 1, Can you elaborate on your sources / background ? How do you know that fish bowl and Tony couldn’t be won by normal member of the public ? Really looking forward for your answer... They were allocated long before GDP went live. You'll have to trawl the first quarter of the GDP thread to see someone's Instagram with a Tony Tiger win well ahead of the draw taking place. Anyway, use some common sense. Do you really think that some potential flipper is going to be allocated an editioned original worth potentially north of £1m... ? It's nice to imagine that would happen but it's not realistic. There are "friends" who are more deserving of Banksy's larger works than Freddie the Flipper.
Can you elaborate on your sources / background ? How do you know that fish bowl and Tony couldn’t be won by normal member of the public ? Really looking forward for your answer... They were allocated long before GDP went live. You'll have to trawl the first quarter of the GDP thread to see someone's Instagram with a Tony Tiger win well ahead of the draw taking place. Anyway, use some common sense. Do you really think that some potential flipper is going to be allocated an editioned original worth potentially north of £1m... ? It's nice to imagine that would happen but it's not realistic. There are "friends" who are more deserving of Banksy's larger works than Freddie the Flipper. |
|
singerstu
New Member
🗨️ 759
👍🏻 517
December 2007
|
Banksy Goldfish, by singerstu on Dec 22, 2020 13:15:14 GMT 1, I understand Banksy needing to keep his team happy, but I wonder how against trading standards GDP is acting. Surely you cannot run operate a retail business that's full of false information and back handed selling? I suspect GDP have broken quite a few rules under UK trading standards, which are normally pretty tough. The issue is one of publishing misleading information. All the products were meant to be available to the public via a lottery/competition question. Some, but not all, limited edition prints and relatively lower valued items (mugs, T-shirts, cushions etc) have been allocated to members of the public via the lottery. The higher valued editioned originals appear to have been sold to mates, VIPs or existing customers only, contrary to the terms of the "so called" draw IMHO. The fact that there was no chance of winning the Goldfish Bowl or Tony Tiger wasn't made clear on the GDP site. A lot of people who followed the entry rules, myself included, wasted their single entry on an item that simply wasn't going to be allocated to a member of the public. No matter, life goes on. A lucky few (members of the public) did get a life changing prize, and the wealthy (VIPs and existing customers) keep on getting wealthier. I suppose high networth collectors don't need to sell so Banksy's art doesn't end up flooding the market. That has to be a good thing for both owners and the artist. Just remember if there is another draw in the future with a single entry per household and you want a chance of winning (however remote), it's probably best to target a lower value item.
This takes me back many years to my law studies and the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
I understand Banksy needing to keep his team happy, but I wonder how against trading standards GDP is acting. Surely you cannot run operate a retail business that's full of false information and back handed selling? I suspect GDP have broken quite a few rules under UK trading standards, which are normally pretty tough. The issue is one of publishing misleading information. All the products were meant to be available to the public via a lottery/competition question. Some, but not all, limited edition prints and relatively lower valued items (mugs, T-shirts, cushions etc) have been allocated to members of the public via the lottery. The higher valued editioned originals appear to have been sold to mates, VIPs or existing customers only, contrary to the terms of the "so called" draw IMHO. The fact that there was no chance of winning the Goldfish Bowl or Tony Tiger wasn't made clear on the GDP site. A lot of people who followed the entry rules, myself included, wasted their single entry on an item that simply wasn't going to be allocated to a member of the public. No matter, life goes on. A lucky few (members of the public) did get a life changing prize, and the wealthy (VIPs and existing customers) keep on getting wealthier. I suppose high networth collectors don't need to sell so Banksy's art doesn't end up flooding the market. That has to be a good thing for both owners and the artist. Just remember if there is another draw in the future with a single entry per household and you want a chance of winning (however remote), it's probably best to target a lower value item. This takes me back many years to my law studies and the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co |
|
Graham H
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,304
👍🏻 2,417
November 2012
|
Banksy Goldfish, by Graham H on Dec 22, 2020 13:21:06 GMT 1, All they would need to do is have one of each won in the raffle.. and there is no proof that this was not the case.. saying that, even if that wasnt the case, what actual ' rule / law ' would they be breaking?
The comment below and by trax51 about all the Editioned originals etc being sold prior to GDP or sold to mates / VIP's is also not true..
Lets be realistic about this, there was no way on earth all of the editions and such were going to be sold for peanuts, he has a massive collector base, and its blindingly obvious that ' stuff ' would be sold to existing collectors - and new people with deep pockets interested in getting a banksy in their collection
Doing what he has done has allowed both the general public to have a life changing experience, and also collectors who have been ' on the list' to get pieces.. and the artist to continue making his art and money ( its a business as well as a charity )
I would have said it was simple really.. no smoke and mirrors..just common sense
I understand Banksy needing to keep his team happy, but I wonder how against trading standards GDP is acting. Surely you cannot run operate a retail business that's full of false information and back handed selling? I suspect GDP have broken quite a few rules under UK trading standards, which are normally pretty tough. The issue is one of publishing misleading information. All the products were meant to be available to the public via a lottery/competition question. Some, but not all, limited edition prints and relatively lower valued items (mugs, T-shirts, cushions etc) have been allocated to members of the public via the lottery. The higher valued editioned originals appear to have been sold to mates, VIPs or existing customers only, contrary to the terms of the "so called" draw IMHO. The fact that there was no chance of winning the Goldfish Bowl or Tony Tiger wasn't made clear on the GDP site. A lot of people who followed the entry rules, myself included, wasted their single entry on an item that simply wasn't going to be allocated to a member of the public. No matter, life goes on. A lucky few (members of the public) did get a life changing prize, and the wealthy (VIPs and existing customers) keep on getting wealthier. I suppose high networth collectors don't need to sell so Banksy's art doesn't end up flooding the market. That has to be a good thing for both owners and the artist. Just remember if there is another draw in the future with a single entry per household and you want a chance of winning (however remote), it's probably best to target a lower value item.
All they would need to do is have one of each won in the raffle.. and there is no proof that this was not the case.. saying that, even if that wasnt the case, what actual ' rule / law ' would they be breaking? The comment below and by trax51 about all the Editioned originals etc being sold prior to GDP or sold to mates / VIP's is also not true.. Lets be realistic about this, there was no way on earth all of the editions and such were going to be sold for peanuts, he has a massive collector base, and its blindingly obvious that ' stuff ' would be sold to existing collectors - and new people with deep pockets interested in getting a banksy in their collection Doing what he has done has allowed both the general public to have a life changing experience, and also collectors who have been ' on the list' to get pieces.. and the artist to continue making his art and money ( its a business as well as a charity ) I would have said it was simple really.. no smoke and mirrors..just common sense I understand Banksy needing to keep his team happy, but I wonder how against trading standards GDP is acting. Surely you cannot run operate a retail business that's full of false information and back handed selling? I suspect GDP have broken quite a few rules under UK trading standards, which are normally pretty tough. The issue is one of publishing misleading information. All the products were meant to be available to the public via a lottery/competition question. Some, but not all, limited edition prints and relatively lower valued items (mugs, T-shirts, cushions etc) have been allocated to members of the public via the lottery. The higher valued editioned originals appear to have been sold to mates, VIPs or existing customers only, contrary to the terms of the "so called" draw IMHO. The fact that there was no chance of winning the Goldfish Bowl or Tony Tiger wasn't made clear on the GDP site. A lot of people who followed the entry rules, myself included, wasted their single entry on an item that simply wasn't going to be allocated to a member of the public. No matter, life goes on. A lucky few (members of the public) did get a life changing prize, and the wealthy (VIPs and existing customers) keep on getting wealthier. I suppose high networth collectors don't need to sell so Banksy's art doesn't end up flooding the market. That has to be a good thing for both owners and the artist. Just remember if there is another draw in the future with a single entry per household and you want a chance of winning (however remote), it's probably best to target a lower value item. |
|
dunkers
New Member
🗨️ 287
👍🏻 281
November 2019
|
Banksy Goldfish, by dunkers on Dec 22, 2020 13:22:17 GMT 1, The issue is one of publishing misleading information. All the products were meant to be available to the public via a lottery/competition question. Some, but not all, limited edition prints and relatively lower valued items (mugs, T-shirts, cushions etc) have been allocated to members of the public via the lottery. The higher valued editioned originals appear to have been sold to mates, VIPs or existing customers only, contrary to the terms of the "so called" draw IMHO. The fact that there was no chance of winning the Goldfish Bowl or Tony Tiger wasn't made clear on the GDP site. A lot of people who followed the entry rules, myself included, wasted their single entry on an item that simply wasn't going to be allocated to a member of the public. No matter, life goes on. A lucky few (members of the public) did get a life changing prize, and the wealthy (VIPs and existing customers) keep on getting wealthier. I suppose high networth collectors don't need to sell so Banksy's art doesn't end up flooding the market. That has to be a good thing for both owners and the artist. Just remember if there is another draw in the future with a single entry per household and you want a chance of winning (however remote), it's probably best to target a lower value item. This takes me back many years to my law studies and the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
Ah yes, the "mere puff" ruling. I remember studying that too.
I cant see that GDP did anything wrong here anyway as you could never enter the lottery for the Goldfish, Tiger or several other items as they were always shown out of stock, so I don't think they have mislead.
On a side note, am I he only one who thinks the goldfish are a bit naff.
The issue is one of publishing misleading information. All the products were meant to be available to the public via a lottery/competition question. Some, but not all, limited edition prints and relatively lower valued items (mugs, T-shirts, cushions etc) have been allocated to members of the public via the lottery. The higher valued editioned originals appear to have been sold to mates, VIPs or existing customers only, contrary to the terms of the "so called" draw IMHO. The fact that there was no chance of winning the Goldfish Bowl or Tony Tiger wasn't made clear on the GDP site. A lot of people who followed the entry rules, myself included, wasted their single entry on an item that simply wasn't going to be allocated to a member of the public. No matter, life goes on. A lucky few (members of the public) did get a life changing prize, and the wealthy (VIPs and existing customers) keep on getting wealthier. I suppose high networth collectors don't need to sell so Banksy's art doesn't end up flooding the market. That has to be a good thing for both owners and the artist. Just remember if there is another draw in the future with a single entry per household and you want a chance of winning (however remote), it's probably best to target a lower value item. This takes me back many years to my law studies and the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Ah yes, the "mere puff" ruling. I remember studying that too. I cant see that GDP did anything wrong here anyway as you could never enter the lottery for the Goldfish, Tiger or several other items as they were always shown out of stock, so I don't think they have mislead. On a side note, am I he only one who thinks the goldfish are a bit naff. |
|
|
|
Warm Gun
Junior Member
🗨️ 4,646
👍🏻 1,130
August 2009
|
Banksy Goldfish, by Warm Gun on Dec 22, 2020 13:28:31 GMT 1, This takes me back many years to my law studies and the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Ah yes, the "mere puff" ruling. I remember studying that too. I cant see that GDP did anything wrong here anyway as you could never enter the lottery for the Goldfish, Tiger or several other items as they were always shown out of stock, so I don't think they have mislead. On a side note, am I he only one who thinks the goldfish are a bit naff.
They are the epitome of tacky.
This takes me back many years to my law studies and the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Ah yes, the "mere puff" ruling. I remember studying that too. I cant see that GDP did anything wrong here anyway as you could never enter the lottery for the Goldfish, Tiger or several other items as they were always shown out of stock, so I don't think they have mislead. On a side note, am I he only one who thinks the goldfish are a bit naff. They are the epitome of tacky. |
|
kuni
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,153
👍🏻 1,818
February 2018
|
Banksy Goldfish, by kuni on Dec 22, 2020 14:08:11 GMT 1, Im sure the person is a member on here.. and its a mix of owned pieces, owned and sold pieces, and pieces not owned.
You have a lovely collection!
Im sure the person is a member on here.. and its a mix of owned pieces, owned and sold pieces, and pieces not owned. You have a lovely collection! |
|
Graham H
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,304
👍🏻 2,417
November 2012
|
Banksy Goldfish, by Graham H on Dec 22, 2020 14:12:08 GMT 1, Ha ha..if only... 
The strange thing about it is that one of the photo's posted on that persons feed is a piece that I actually own .. and thats why I think I can say that all on there isnt owned by the person.
Its a great collection though by the looks
Im sure the person is a member on here.. and its a mix of owned pieces, owned and sold pieces, and pieces not owned. You have a lovely collection!
Ha ha..if only... The strange thing about it is that one of the photo's posted on that persons feed is a piece that I actually own .. and thats why I think I can say that all on there isnt owned by the person. Its a great collection though by the looks Im sure the person is a member on here.. and its a mix of owned pieces, owned and sold pieces, and pieces not owned. You have a lovely collection! |
|
Mark
New Member
🗨️ 97
👍🏻 185
November 2019
|
Banksy Goldfish, by Mark on Dec 22, 2020 14:13:53 GMT 1, Interestingly, it seems all the products were updated this month, not sure what updates were done. You just need to look at the "updated_at" timestamps
Interestingly, it seems all the products were updated this month, not sure what updates were done. You just need to look at the "updated_at" timestamps
|
|
silvermyn
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,612
👍🏻 781
April 2008
|
Banksy Goldfish, by silvermyn on Dec 22, 2020 14:20:26 GMT 1, The issue is one of publishing misleading information. All the products were meant to be available to the public via a lottery/competition question. Some, but not all, limited edition prints and relatively lower valued items (mugs, T-shirts, cushions etc) have been allocated to members of the public via the lottery. The higher valued editioned originals appear to have been sold to mates, VIPs or existing customers only, contrary to the terms of the "so called" draw IMHO. The fact that there was no chance of winning the Goldfish Bowl or Tony Tiger wasn't made clear on the GDP site. A lot of people who followed the entry rules, myself included, wasted their single entry on an item that simply wasn't going to be allocated to a member of the public. No matter, life goes on. A lucky few (members of the public) did get a life changing prize, and the wealthy (VIPs and existing customers) keep on getting wealthier. I suppose high networth collectors don't need to sell so Banksy's art doesn't end up flooding the market. That has to be a good thing for both owners and the artist. Just remember if there is another draw in the future with a single entry per household and you want a chance of winning (however remote), it's probably best to target a lower value item. This takes me back many years to my law studies and the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
Yeah, important case for contract law. Carbolic lost big time despite coming up with every piece of BS they could think of.
The issue is one of publishing misleading information. All the products were meant to be available to the public via a lottery/competition question. Some, but not all, limited edition prints and relatively lower valued items (mugs, T-shirts, cushions etc) have been allocated to members of the public via the lottery. The higher valued editioned originals appear to have been sold to mates, VIPs or existing customers only, contrary to the terms of the "so called" draw IMHO. The fact that there was no chance of winning the Goldfish Bowl or Tony Tiger wasn't made clear on the GDP site. A lot of people who followed the entry rules, myself included, wasted their single entry on an item that simply wasn't going to be allocated to a member of the public. No matter, life goes on. A lucky few (members of the public) did get a life changing prize, and the wealthy (VIPs and existing customers) keep on getting wealthier. I suppose high networth collectors don't need to sell so Banksy's art doesn't end up flooding the market. That has to be a good thing for both owners and the artist. Just remember if there is another draw in the future with a single entry per household and you want a chance of winning (however remote), it's probably best to target a lower value item. This takes me back many years to my law studies and the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Yeah, important case for contract law. Carbolic lost big time despite coming up with every piece of BS they could think of. |
|
Mark
New Member
🗨️ 97
👍🏻 185
November 2019
|
Banksy Goldfish, by Mark on Dec 22, 2020 14:28:23 GMT 1, Although it was great some people got life changing products, wasn't GDP more a selfish act to try and tackle the "Full Colour Black" legal case.
If successful, taking down "Full Colour Black" wouldnt have meant everything to Banksy and his team.
Therefore I suspect just a few products were actually sold, and most were never intended to be sold.
The sale of 1 Goldfish is likely just a front and a way to try and show the retail business is folowing any legal obligations.
Although it was great some people got life changing products, wasn't GDP more a selfish act to try and tackle the "Full Colour Black" legal case.
If successful, taking down "Full Colour Black" wouldnt have meant everything to Banksy and his team.
Therefore I suspect just a few products were actually sold, and most were never intended to be sold.
The sale of 1 Goldfish is likely just a front and a way to try and show the retail business is folowing any legal obligations.
|
|
acaipride
New Member
🗨️ 906
👍🏻 447
April 2020
|
Banksy Goldfish, by acaipride on Dec 22, 2020 14:38:50 GMT 1, Although it was great some people got life changing products, wasn't GDP more a selfish act to try and tackle the "Full Colour Black" legal case.
If successful, taking down "Full Colour Black" wouldnt have meant everything to Banksy and his team.
Therefore I suspect just a few products were actually sold, and most were never intended to be sold.
The sale of 1 Goldfish is likely just a front and a way to try and show the retail business is folowing any legal obligations.
It was more than that,imo the ultimate objective is to have street art's authors recognized and their work protected before corps take the artist images and mass produce them with not even breadcrumbs for the artist. It is happening,it has happened..fullcolorcrap is releasing skateboards with the thrower and the monkey sign shortly...ppl think it is just about the money...banksy as a movement is much more than that
Although it was great some people got life changing products, wasn't GDP more a selfish act to try and tackle the "Full Colour Black" legal case.
If successful, taking down "Full Colour Black" wouldnt have meant everything to Banksy and his team.
Therefore I suspect just a few products were actually sold, and most were never intended to be sold.
The sale of 1 Goldfish is likely just a front and a way to try and show the retail business is folowing any legal obligations.
It was more than that,imo the ultimate objective is to have street art's authors recognized and their work protected before corps take the artist images and mass produce them with not even breadcrumbs for the artist. It is happening,it has happened..fullcolorcrap is releasing skateboards with the thrower and the monkey sign shortly...ppl think it is just about the money...banksy as a movement is much more than that |
|
acaipride
New Member
🗨️ 906
👍🏻 447
April 2020
|
Banksy Goldfish, by acaipride on Dec 22, 2020 14:39:46 GMT 1, I understand Banksy needing to keep his team happy, but I wonder how against trading standards GDP is acting. Surely you cannot run operate a retail business that's full of false information and back handed selling? I suspect GDP have broken quite a few rules under UK trading standards, which are normally pretty tough.
L o l
I understand Banksy needing to keep his team happy, but I wonder how against trading standards GDP is acting. Surely you cannot run operate a retail business that's full of false information and back handed selling? I suspect GDP have broken quite a few rules under UK trading standards, which are normally pretty tough. L o l |
|
|
|
acaipride
New Member
🗨️ 906
👍🏻 447
April 2020
|
Banksy Goldfish, by acaipride on Dec 22, 2020 14:43:19 GMT 1, This takes me back many years to my law studies and the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Yeah, important case for contract law. Carbolic lost big time despite coming up with every piece of BS they could think of.
I've heard about the case and it's not substantial to this case as it falls under fair market rules, there was no initial purchase to enter...it MAY have been the case if they charged for a lottery drawing
This takes me back many years to my law studies and the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Yeah, important case for contract law. Carbolic lost big time despite coming up with every piece of BS they could think of. I've heard about the case and it's not substantial to this case as it falls under fair market rules, there was no initial purchase to enter...it MAY have been the case if they charged for a lottery drawing |
|
|
|
Banksy Goldfish, by Dexter Bulldog on Dec 22, 2020 15:28:28 GMT 1, Ha ha..if only... The strange thing about it is that one of the photo's posted on that persons feed is a piece that I actually own .. and thats why I think I can say that all on there isnt owned by the person. Its a great collection though by the looks You have a lovely collection!
also is the gwb posted on november 25 the light pink ? the one from may is definitely the dark pink, i dont think ive ever seen the light pink
Ha ha..if only... The strange thing about it is that one of the photo's posted on that persons feed is a piece that I actually own .. and thats why I think I can say that all on there isnt owned by the person. Its a great collection though by the looks You have a lovely collection! if its the love hurts, get a better frame job mate! also is the gwb posted on november 25 the light pink ? the one from may is definitely the dark pink, i dont think ive ever seen the light pink |
|
JFCC
New Member
🗨️ 390
👍🏻 394
May 2020
|
Banksy Goldfish, by JFCC on Dec 22, 2020 15:39:53 GMT 1, This takes me back many years to my law studies and the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Yeah, important case for contract law. Carbolic lost big time despite coming up with every piece of BS they could think of.
This takes me back many years to my law studies and the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Yeah, important case for contract law. Carbolic lost big time despite coming up with every piece of BS they could think of. The good old case of Carhill v Carbolic Smoke Company 1893, as heard in the Court of Appeal, the difference here was that the plaintiff had purchased the smoke balls and contracted flu which the manufacturers claimed it protected you from or you would get a reward of £100 (about £13k today). When the Defendants refused to pay it was claimed to be Sales Puff etc. Slightly different from the situation with Gold Fish! |
|
Graham H
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,304
👍🏻 2,417
November 2012
|
Banksy Goldfish, by Graham H on Dec 22, 2020 15:44:15 GMT 1, again... If Only..
Ha ha..if only... The strange thing about it is that one of the photo's posted on that persons feed is a piece that I actually own .. and thats why I think I can say that all on there isnt owned by the person. Its a great collection though by the looks if its the love hurts, get a better frame job mate! also is the Girl With Balloon posted on november 25 the light pink ? the one from may is definitely the dark pink, i dont think ive ever seen the light pink
again... If Only.. Ha ha..if only... The strange thing about it is that one of the photo's posted on that persons feed is a piece that I actually own .. and thats why I think I can say that all on there isnt owned by the person. Its a great collection though by the looks if its the love hurts, get a better frame job mate! also is the Girl With Balloon posted on november 25 the light pink ? the one from may is definitely the dark pink, i dont think ive ever seen the light pink |
|
dunkers
New Member
🗨️ 287
👍🏻 281
November 2019
|
Banksy Goldfish, by dunkers on Dec 22, 2020 16:05:04 GMT 1, Yeah, important case for contract law. Carbolic lost big time despite coming up with every piece of BS they could think of. The good old case of Carhill v Carbolic Smoke Company 1893, as heard in the Court of Appeal, the difference here was that the plaintiff had purchased the smoke balls and contracted flu which the manufacturers claimed it protected you from or you would get a reward of £100 (about £13k today). When the Defendants refused to pay it was claimed to be Sales Puff etc. Slightly different from the situation with Gold Fish!
Bang on, interesting case but distinguishable on the facts and wholly irrelevant to the complaints in this thread about the lottery and the goldfish.
Carbolic involved a unilateral contract where an advertisement was deemed an offer capable of legal acceptance and thus formed a contract. Whereas in GDP the whole lottery system was just an invitation to treat and nothing more than allowing the registration of interest. No contracts are formed at that point and merely listing products for sale does not create any obligation to sell to any party at all.
Yeah, important case for contract law. Carbolic lost big time despite coming up with every piece of BS they could think of. The good old case of Carhill v Carbolic Smoke Company 1893, as heard in the Court of Appeal, the difference here was that the plaintiff had purchased the smoke balls and contracted flu which the manufacturers claimed it protected you from or you would get a reward of £100 (about £13k today). When the Defendants refused to pay it was claimed to be Sales Puff etc. Slightly different from the situation with Gold Fish! Bang on, interesting case but distinguishable on the facts and wholly irrelevant to the complaints in this thread about the lottery and the goldfish. Carbolic involved a unilateral contract where an advertisement was deemed an offer capable of legal acceptance and thus formed a contract. Whereas in GDP the whole lottery system was just an invitation to treat and nothing more than allowing the registration of interest. No contracts are formed at that point and merely listing products for sale does not create any obligation to sell to any party at all. |
|
silvermyn
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,612
👍🏻 781
April 2008
|
Banksy Goldfish, by silvermyn on Dec 22, 2020 16:20:04 GMT 1, Yeah, important case for contract law. Carbolic lost big time despite coming up with every piece of BS they could think of. The good old case of Carhill v Carbolic Smoke Company 1893, as heard in the Court of Appeal, the difference here was that the plaintiff had purchased the smoke balls and contracted flu which the manufacturers claimed it protected you from or you would get a reward of £100 (about £13k today). When the Defendants refused to pay it was claimed to be Sales Puff etc. Slightly different from the situation with Gold Fish!
What, is it A Level law lectures on here today? 
I didn’t bring up the case. It's Carlill in any event, not Carhill.
Back to the bowl of fish now please.
Yeah, important case for contract law. Carbolic lost big time despite coming up with every piece of BS they could think of. The good old case of Carhill v Carbolic Smoke Company 1893, as heard in the Court of Appeal, the difference here was that the plaintiff had purchased the smoke balls and contracted flu which the manufacturers claimed it protected you from or you would get a reward of £100 (about £13k today). When the Defendants refused to pay it was claimed to be Sales Puff etc. Slightly different from the situation with Gold Fish! What, is it A Level law lectures on here today? I didn’t bring up the case. It's Carlill in any event, not Carhill. Back to the bowl of fish now please. |
|
JFCC
New Member
🗨️ 390
👍🏻 394
May 2020
|
Banksy Goldfish, by JFCC on Dec 22, 2020 16:49:08 GMT 1, The good old case of Carhill v Carbolic Smoke Company 1893, as heard in the Court of Appeal, the difference here was that the plaintiff had purchased the smoke balls and contracted flu which the manufacturers claimed it protected you from or you would get a reward of £100 (about £13k today). When the Defendants refused to pay it was claimed to be Sales Puff etc. Slightly different from the situation with Gold Fish! What, is it A Level law lectures on here today? I didn’t bring up the case. It's Carlill in any event, not Carhill. Back to the bowl of fish now please. 
The good old case of Carhill v Carbolic Smoke Company 1893, as heard in the Court of Appeal, the difference here was that the plaintiff had purchased the smoke balls and contracted flu which the manufacturers claimed it protected you from or you would get a reward of £100 (about £13k today). When the Defendants refused to pay it was claimed to be Sales Puff etc. Slightly different from the situation with Gold Fish! What, is it A Level law lectures on here today? I didn’t bring up the case. It's Carlill in any event, not Carhill. Back to the bowl of fish now please. Yes on that point you are correct, my sincere apologies! it is Carlill |
|
dumbo
New Member
🗨️ 40
👍🏻 67
November 2020
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ubl
New Member
🗨️ 362
👍🏻 301
November 2019
|
Banksy Goldfish, by ubl on Jul 13, 2021 1:02:00 GMT 1, Didn't see this one pass when it did, it looks awesome. Always wondered whether it refers to this one.
Didn't see this one pass when it did, it looks awesome. Always wondered whether it refers to this one. |
|
hibster
New Member
🗨️ 237
👍🏻 228
October 2013
|
Banksy Goldfish, by hibster on Jul 13, 2021 8:49:22 GMT 1, http://instagr.am/p/CG0zvIflMse His (or her!) collection is one for the ages. I find it interesting that they have the heavy weaponry from Central Park booth in nyc.
re the court cases, it's clearly pharmaceutical society of GB v Boots that is the one to be referenced
http://instagr.am/p/CG0zvIflMse His (or her!) collection is one for the ages. I find it interesting that they have the heavy weaponry from Central Park booth in nyc. was also on the lakota in bristol back in the day... re the court cases, it's clearly pharmaceutical society of GB v Boots that is the one to be referenced |
|
|
|
Banksy Goldfish, by Charlesworth on Jul 13, 2021 9:16:05 GMT 1, I think the fire place at GDP had the same fire/log combo
Didn't see this one pass when it did, it looks awesome. Always wondered whether it refers to this one.
I think the fire place at GDP had the same fire/log combo Didn't see this one pass when it did, it looks awesome. Always wondered whether it refers to this one. |
|
Brice
New Member
🗨️ 75
👍🏻 88
March 2021
|
Banksy Goldfish, by Brice on Jul 13, 2021 10:14:47 GMT 1, Didn't see this one pass when it did, it looks awesome. Always wondered whether it refers to this one.
Unrelated to the subject discussed here, the Oscar which has disappeared from the edge of the fireplace. Robbo had gone to the Berlin Film Festival. I saw this last week watching "Graffiti Wars"
Didn't see this one pass when it did, it looks awesome. Always wondered whether it refers to this one.
Unrelated to the subject discussed here, the Oscar which has disappeared from the edge of the fireplace. Robbo had gone to the Berlin Film Festival. I saw this last week watching "Graffiti Wars"
|
|
|
|
Londown 01
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,223
👍🏻 1,016
September 2021
|
Banksy Goldfish, by Londown 01 on Apr 12, 2023 11:36:39 GMT 1, Quite a few GDP items seem to have never been sold/ auctioned?! Goldfish, Early Learning Counting Set, TV ... A few months years back somebody tried to guess a few prices, but nothing else that I've heard of.
Quite a few GDP items seem to have never been sold/ auctioned?! Goldfish, Early Learning Counting Set, TV ... A few months years back somebody tried to guess a few prices, but nothing else that I've heard of.
|
|
lukas01
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,231
👍🏻 991
December 2022
|
Banksy Goldfish, by lukas01 on Apr 12, 2023 11:46:35 GMT 1, Quite a few GDP items seem to have never been sold/ auctioned?! Goldfish, Early Learning Counting Set, TV ... A few months years back somebody tried to guess a few prices, but nothing else that I've heard of.
Can I ask you something I've seen written around?... What is a VIP?
Quite a few GDP items seem to have never been sold/ auctioned?! Goldfish, Early Learning Counting Set, TV ... A few months years back somebody tried to guess a few prices, but nothing else that I've heard of. Maybe he sold them in some other stall... and we're here to talk about it... hoping that it can still be bought from the GDP. Can I ask you something I've seen written around?... What is a VIP? |
|
