“It’s not a bad game, it’s a AAAAA title!” “Oh great, yet another AAAA game from Ubisoft”. That high number of A’s is becoming a synonym for a bad rushed game with a big budget.
A New Zealand tribunal has dismissed a woman’s claim against her then-partner after he failed to take her to the airport, leading her to miss her flight ahead of a concert with friends.She accused her boyfriend at the time of allegedly breaching a “verbal contract” in which he agreed to take her to the airport, stay in her house and look after her dogs.According to a legal document which only gives the applicant and respondent’s initials, the woman (CL) said she asked her boyfriend (HG) to collect her from her home and take her to the airport between 10:00 and 10:15am.But he failed to do so, she told New Zealand’s Disputes Tribunal, which deals with small claims up to NZ$30,000 (£14,526).As a result, CL said she missed her flight and had to foot the bill for additional costs, including travelling the next day and putting her dogs in a kennel.In her claim, she went on to outline the minutiae of the inconvenience she faced, including costs for a shuttle service to the airport.The couple had been in a relationship for six and a half years until the dispute.Before the case was dismissed, the tribunal looked at whether the woman’s boyfriend had entered a contract to take her to the airport and look after her dogs.
The tribunal also looked into whether the pair had entered a contract in which the boyfriend had said he would incur the costs for a separate ferry trip to visit the woman’s sons.CL said she paid for hers and her partner’s ferry fares, and wished to be reimbursed for the cost of his ticket.Conditional to both of those being true, the court looked at whether the boyfriend breached the alleged contract.It concluded that for an agreement to be enforceable, “there needs to be an intention to create a legally binding relationship”, which was not the case for CL and HG.
“Partners, friends and colleagues make social arrangements, but it is unlikely they can be legally enforced unless the parties perform some act that demonstrates an intention that they will be bound by their promises,” tribunal referee Krysia Cowie wrote in the decision document.
"When friends fail to keep their promises, the other person may suffer a financial consequence but it may be that they cannot be compensated for that loss.
"The referee found “the nature of the promises were exchanged as a normal give and take in an intimate relationship” and fell short of being a contract.
"As I have found that the parties made their agreement in the context of their friendship, CL has not shown she is entitled to the order that she seeks and her claim is dismissed.
The original article contains 454 words, the summary contains 446 words. Saved 2%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I’m curious as to what’s the opinion of an average German about this? Because this is so fucked up - a right-winger fascist gets a peace prize? Now that’s a new one.
If “Common sense” is rationalize genocide, then I don’t need it. Seriously. Your types normally deny it. Now you’re just encouraging an endless cycle of violence. In 20 to 30 years, when the surviving Palestinian kids have grown up and gotten their own resources, are you just going to be fine with them attacking Israel or burning synagogues? Cause accounting to your logic, it would be their turn.
I think people misinterpreted your comment. I read it as “Israel has the right to exist bro, which includes ethnic cleansing to right the wrongs of WW2”. You know, sarcastically
It’s a “price” handed out by a for-profit conglomerate, so it’s not really something I ever thought about in all the years it very briefly came up. In fact this is the first I’m reminded about it existing in 4 years or so? I doubt most germans have ever heard of the “Börsenverein”, nevermind it’s “price” or this author or what she wrote.
I’m no nazi apologist, but given how many members of the party were average people who didn’t take part in the genocide, I don’t really know what else you’d expect. Yes, probably a lot more higher ups and definitely anyone who had direct knowledge of the camps should have been up for war crimes, but what about the schlub who repaired people’s plumbing?
Fuck all nazis. See a nazi, punch a nazi. All that jazz.
Fuck off. I raised the point that vilifying people who had party affiliation but no real participation is wrong and that’s valid. I hate that my mother votes for Trump, but that doesn’t make her evil. She’s bigoted and misguided. She’s certainly no Steve Bannon.
Further, contemporary nazis have no excuse while in early-20th Germany there was far less access to non-state information. My mother’s a useful idiot to the right whereas modern day nazis know exactly what they’re supporting. Modern nazism gets no benefit of the doubt.
they joined the nazi party, mate. they went and did it. it’s not like someone drove by and threw a membership book at them and boom, they were now nazis. they went and deliberately joined the most racist party.
The article has some really weird parts underlining somebody’s anti-Russian and pro-Ukrainian while discussing Gaza/Israel -situation. It’s like there’s one larger eastern power killing indiscriminantly a smaller population west of them. And per article it’s horrific when it’s Gaza but somehow it’s US and UK imperialism when Russians are killing/raping/pillagin in Ukraine.
Neither of these conflicts are indiscriminate killings. Israel is deliberately targeting civilians and children. Russia is targeting military targets. It’s not through pure chance that Israel has killed over a hundred times as many children.
nottheonion
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.