In article "Oksana
Gutteridge" wrote:
> In news:nemoMon011408071845@news.netspace.net.au,
> Ronald Huttner typed:
>> In article "Oksana
>> Gutteridge" wrote:
>>> This, however, is Usenet. The only thing that counts here (if
>>> anything counts) is the quality of the argument. Claimed
>>> qualifications, knowledge and skill mean nothing.
>> Dear Oksana Gibberish/Garbage
>> Sure, sure. And the quality of your argument on this caveat matter
>> has to date been absolutely zero - because you have yet to present
>> anything that even remotely resembles an argument.You haven't
>> advanced beyond insults yet.
>> By the way, I have conducted numerous cases before the Federal
>> Court, the AAT etc over the years, so am certainly able to argue the
>> law. Have you ? Can you ?
> The answers to your questions are "Yes" and "Yes". But this means
> nothing. You have made my point. Such claims are meaningless here -
> they are a claim to give a superior quality to responses, which is
> nonsense. Even the RVI gets it occasionally right, and it has no
> legal knowledge, legal skills, or any knowledge or skills of any
> other kind for that matter.
> The reason I did not engage in any discussion about caveats is that
> it was pointless for the OP. In the context, there is no problem in
> the OP lodging a caveat, because the OP's former partner would not go
> to the trouble and cost of legal action of removing it. What you
> were suggesting in this respect was plainly irrelevant nonsense.
> If I am wrong in guessing the reaction of the OP's former partner to
> the caveat, the threat of legal action would be enough to cause the
> OP to lift the caveat. But I am not wrong.
> There is every reason for the OP to protect their interest by
> lodging a caveat. Whether there is a caveatable interest is
> irrelevant, in the real world.
> In addition, it should be understood that any advice given to any
> poster here is based on what the poster says, which means that
> neither the information put forward and the advice given should be
> taken with extreme scepticism. Any poster has to decide their own
> course of action, and should never rely on any advice given here.
> In short, you have unequivocally demonstrated yourself to be a
> silly, little, posturing, irrelevant wanker, and you really don't
> have any idea what you are taking about. It is not abuse, Ron Ron.
> You have done it yourself. I am sure that you have done it many
> times before, but perhaps not quite so publicly and permanently. And
> you are now hooked, but you have nowhere to go. Tough luck, Ron
> Ron!
More complete rubbish - not worthy of a detailed response. As i
understand the situation the OP hopes, one day, to see the property
sold by her former partner. Her right to the $80,000.00 only arises if
and when it is sold. That time may be soon, or it may be a very long
way off. Whenever it occurs the caveat will first have to be removed.
No sale of the property by the OP's former partner will be able to
take place until the caveat is removed. But removal of it will be
simply and promptly ordered, if in fact the OP never had any
caveatable interest in the land in the first place. And why would she
not agree to the caveat's removal immediately, if the reason is that
her former partner wants to sell the property ? That is precisely what
she wants to see happen - ie a sale. And the caveat achieves nothing
more than ensuring that she gets notified of a proposed sale. It may
even be that the contract she entered into with her former partner
specifically requires him to notify her of any proposed sale, in any
event. A caveat in no way whatsoever protects her interest in the
proceeds of sale. If the vendor were to fail to pay her the $80,000
out of the proceeds she would be simply left with her remedies for
breach of contract. She would still have no actual interest
enforceable against the land itself. So the question of whether she
ever had a caveatable interest in the land in the first place is not,
and never can be, irrelevant. It is always relevant. Insult me all you
like, Oxe-Brain. Call me a wanker, or an idiot. Whatever you like. It
is of absolutely no concern to me. My career and reputation in the law
are far too well-established to be affected or bothered by such
rridiculous side-winds (farts) from you. You should, in fact, urgently
talk to BONZO about how best to quickly and efficiently reduce your
gas emissions ! And by the way, I can't find a single case in the
Federal Court database of AustLII that you argued. Unless of course
you used the pseudonmym "T.E. Hughes QC" or suchlike. Can you provide
me with the name of even one case you ever argued ? I am most
interested !
|