My understanding is that the signature on a UFN is simply to confirm that the person issuing it has explained that it must be paid or appealed within ten day and the recipient understands this. Refusal to sign does not negate the UFN, or mean the recipient of it is agreeing to pay or not.
My understanding is that the signature on a UFN is simply to confirm that the person issuing it has explained that it must be paid or appealed within ten day and the recipient understands this. Refusal to sign does not negate the UFN, or mean the recipient of it is agreeing to pay or not.
A contract which one party has refused to agree to is not a contract at all.
Isn't the agreement made at the point they stepped on the train?
Isn't the agreement made at the point they stepped on the train?
Yes.
The UPFN is simply an invoice for payment. The liability to make the payment arises from the contract that has already been entered into when the passenger accepted the ToC's offer of transportation for payment of a consideration by stepping onto a train.
But in RJ's case of holding a valid ticket and therefore having satisfied his contractual obligations........?! Which is after all what we are talking about in the first instance!
WillPS was saying that if you refuse to sign a UFN that you are not accepting the contract and it can't be enforced. We were just making the point that the contract is entered into by getting on the train.
Oh yea, a signature is a good thing (and makes it more difficult for somebody to argue), but lack of a signature does not negate the UFN.
No. In RJ's case, by not signing he is saying that he does not accept that the ticket(s) he has presented for inspection are not valid for the journey he is undertaking.by not signing, you are saying that you don't accept that you need to pay within 21 days!
No. In RJ's case, by not signing he is saying that he does not accept that the ticket(s) he has presented for inspection are not valid for the journey he is undertaking.
One and the same thing surely!!!
Prosecuting someone with a valid ticket will not endear you to the local magistrates. Get a reputation for that sort of thing and they will not see you as a credible witness in future cases. They have surprisingly long memories.
To me it should make it a matter for immediate Prosecution! After all, by not signing, you are saying that you don't accept that you need to pay within 21 days!
I don't understand this argument. Why should you accept that you need to pay within 21 days when you hold a perfectly valid ticket and therefore have no debt to pay ?
Right - I get it now. As you say, the thread is rather confused now.
A bit like RJ's tickets
Why is the box there in the first place?!
I've often speculated over that question in a wide variety of cases. It seems to me that people who design forms often just decide that "it should probably have...", without always putting in sufficient thought as to why. It may just be that someone thought it was a good idea.
I reckon he'd have me stumped with some of these combinations! Thankfully he doesn't seem to use my services so I've been safe so far!
I've often speculated over that question in a wide variety of cases. It seems to me that people who design forms often just decide that "it should probably have...", without always putting in sufficient thought as to why. It may just be that someone thought it was a good idea.
When my mother purchased a laptop from Comet, they had a bizarre policy of requiring a signature to say confirm that they'd offered you an extended warranty and you'd turned it down! Anyway, back on topic...
I've often speculated over that question in a wide variety of cases. It seems to me that people who design forms often just decide that "it should probably have...", without always putting in sufficient thought as to why. It may just be that someone thought it was a good idea.
I know what you mean, but go back to RJ's post about what it says above the signature box. That was written by a lawyer, it reeks of it!