blonde poker forum

If you had a dispute with a company and eventually accepted a goodwill gesture from them based on their statement of the facts and later discovered that you had been misled by them, that they knew that your case was stronger than they were admitting, would you feel that you could reopen the discussion?
 

No.

Once I accepted their offer, that's it, I can't have another bite at the cherry now.

Get out of town Tikay!

If they intentionally misled me so that I accepted a poor offer, I would be checking if I was legally entitled to more even though I had accepted whatever I accepted and if so I would be instructing a solicitor to reopen the discussion.

;)

You'd not say that if the boot were on the other foot, would you?

It really depends on how significant the difference is and if it was clear that they deliberately mislead.

Agree with Doobs.

It depends on what the dispute is and whether it's worth time pursuing and potentially involving solicitors and courts.

Some things are better just put behind you and let the other guy have a win. Life's too short.

On the other hand if it's something major then I'd take them to the cleaners. Deliberately misleading is serious but unless you have proof that they've deliberately misled you then you haven't got a leg to stand on. That being the case then again just let it go because you'll just end up stressed over something that ultimately isn't worth it.

Thanks all for the responses so far, even Tikay despite his view being quite so wrong ;)




Let's say that they told me X couldn't be allowed whilst allowing someone else to do it. Significant 4figure sum involved.





It's not absolutely major in the life-changing sense, and I had put it behind me until I came to the realisation that I was almost certainly misled. It isn't likely to arrive at a point where solicitors need to be involved, and I am going to avoid getting overly stressed about it, but there is a question of principles here that maybe needs to be addressed.

Correct answer.

We have a minor issue in our block of flats.  We paid a bloke to put up a fence and he was handed the money by the lady downstairs and asked to count it but didn't bother and then came back saying that it was £100 short to his brother in law who lives in the other downstairs (who now says that he's going to pay this £100 out of his share).  I'm am raging about this.

Once you accept payment/settlement - that's it.  If you've been conned or whatever - tough, live and learn.

This could be an oversight  or an error perhaps ? Obviously hard to tell from 'emel.

I think I take Matt's ticket on this - if it's 100% that I was misled and their own internal documentation would show that then I would happily re-open if I cared from a monetary or principle point of view. Courts take a really dim view of misleading disclosure etc

If I had to rely on circumstantials or a hope that I might demonstrate I was misled I don't think I'd bother

I don't think that's quite the same.

Let's say for argument sake that the guy was indeed handed x £ which was £100 less than agreed. He took it in good faith. There was an oversight and when he counted it later (didn't feel that he needed to at the time) it was indeed £100 short then he still is owed that imo.

Obviously he's probably pulling a fast one, but I don't think just because I've taken something in my hand that it's a done deal

Whilst I admire your stance when it comes to principles if the other party doesn't have any then you aren't going to achieve anything. If they're happy to mislead you then I doubt they'll care if they're eventually proved wrong. If you aren't going to get a public apology or similar then I'm afraid principles often aren't worth fighting for.

Once upon a time a guy called Derek Webb invented the casino game of three-card-poker which he sold to a US casino group. This was around twenty odd years ago.

They came up with some "evidence" during final negotiations that the game had been plagiarised and pressured him and his team into taking a lot($M's) less than the deal which had been agreed.

When he discovered afterwards that there was no such evidence and he had actually been the victim of a scam he took them to court and received several $M's more than that original settlement.

He had been mislead you see.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_card_poker

This is where I can take the morally correct line, and say that it would never be on the other foot, as I would never intentionally mislead someone.

 :kiss:

But if you did intentionally mislead someone you would happily compound that misleading by further misleading with the statement above.

It's like someone saying that they'd "never lie". Completely pointless if they're lying anyway....

This is why morals means nothing in this sort of situation. The morally corrupt person really doesn't give a shit who ends up being the king of principle towers.