82,891
edits
Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc: Difference between revisions
Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc (view source)
Revision as of 09:53, 15 August 2016
, 15 August 2016no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
A fine example of that old legal maxim ''[[anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt]]'': Little old ladies (and, in this case, aggrieved Welsh hotel owners) make bad law, {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}} opines on the apparently harmless {{isdaprov|Notices}} Section (Section {{isdaprov|12}}) of the {{1992ma}}. In particular it considers the meaning of “[[electronic messaging system]]” and, saucily, finds that it does not include [[email]]. | A fine example of that old legal maxim ''[[anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt]]'': Little old ladies (and, in this case, aggrieved Welsh hotel owners) make bad law, {{casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}} opines on the apparently harmless {{isdaprov|Notices}} Section (Section {{isdaprov|12}}) of the {{1992ma}}. In particular it considers the meaning of “[[electronic messaging system]]” and, saucily, finds that it does not include [[email]]. | ||
Let me say that again, in case you missed it: in the eyes of the common law, '''[[email]] does not count as an “[[electronic messaging system]]” | Let me say that again, in case you missed it: in the eyes of the common law, '''[[email]] does not count as an “[[electronic messaging system]]”'''. | ||
===Facts=== | ===Facts=== | ||