FAO Mike Rainbird
03-02-2005, 10:53 PM
#41
Advanced PassionFord User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 2,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know of a nice car you can buy with that $12k (sorry no pound symbol) - it does 0-60 in under 3 secs too! 
TBH when you said you'd done an engine for a mini that hit 60 in 3 secs with a 900cc motor I kind of assumed you meant a 900cc A-Series!!!
TBH when you said you'd done an engine for a mini that hit 60 in 3 secs with a 900cc motor I kind of assumed you meant a 900cc A-Series!!!
03-02-2005, 10:53 PM
#42
DEYTUKURJERBS
Mike only said it as he foolishly assumed it was just a tuned FWD mini.
I wasnt so daft to assume and looked into it and found out it was a RWD bike engined monster, and with its spec that 0-60 is totally achivable.
Mikes daft to jump to conclusions without knowing more facts.
The XR2 is still BS tho, but thats different
I wasnt so daft to assume and looked into it and found out it was a RWD bike engined monster, and with its spec that 0-60 is totally achivable.
Mikes daft to jump to conclusions without knowing more facts.
The XR2 is still BS tho, but thats different
03-02-2005, 11:00 PM
#43
Advanced PassionFord User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: benfleet, essex
Posts: 2,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike only said it as he foolishly assumed it was just a tuned FWD mini.
Mikes daft to jump to conclusions without knowing more facts.
now, martin got away with it, but mike on the other hand......this baby revs to 16500 and will pull 60+ in first gear
03-02-2005, 11:04 PM
#44
DEYTUKURJERBS
no no no, the thing is, I knew ENOUGH facts about the XR2 to know its bollocks, thats my point (wether others did i dont know or care)
the mini we knew nothing apart from 1000cc and 3sec to 60, so plenty of variables that could make it easy possible, hence why i never doubted it once
the mini we knew nothing apart from 1000cc and 3sec to 60, so plenty of variables that could make it easy possible, hence why i never doubted it once
04-02-2005, 03:59 AM
#49
Ex Full Price gold member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Coming back to Essex in 2008....
Posts: 3,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by POPEYE
another i like to be proved right merchants 
Martin
04-02-2005, 07:24 AM
#52
Advanced PassionFord User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 2,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont think anyone made any assumptions about the XR2 - its a 1660cc HT racing CVH in the Toyo series - people only assumed the Mini was an A-Series (well I did) as it came in a 900cc flavour from the factory. 0-60 was no doubt around 14seconds or something painful like that.
04-02-2005, 07:52 AM
#54
Pugo,
You fell for it hook line and sinker. If you see at the end of the offer, there is a little * which you and no-one else picked up on. This was deliberate and was for a little caveat to be added at a later date.
I hoped you would bite, but when you didn't I was most disappointed
.
The reason for posting this was that if money was offered up front (like Martin did to the Fiesta guy) and there WAS proof (as I hoped there would be with your claims, as you didn't seem the typre to bullshit) ), then you WOULD take up such an offer, immaterial of whether you had the cash or not (one of your arguements for him not doing so ).
So in effect, you have just proved without a doubt that the guy was talking bollocks and that the ONLY reason he didn't accept Martin's offer, was that he had no proof to back his claims up and he also knew he was talking bollocks. Just like the ONLY reason you accepted my offer, is because you DO have the evidence.
I was just proving a point, so think this is rather appropriate
- and now who's the TWAT ?
You fell for it hook line and sinker
. If you see at the end of the offer, there is a little * which you and no-one else picked up on. This was deliberate and was for a little caveat to be added at a later date.I hoped you would bite, but when you didn't I was most disappointed
.The reason for posting this was that if money was offered up front (like Martin did to the Fiesta guy) and there WAS proof (as I hoped there would be with your claims, as you didn't seem the typre to bullshit
) ), then you WOULD take up such an offer, immaterial of whether you had the cash or not (one of your arguements for him not doing so ).So in effect, you have just proved without a doubt that the guy was talking bollocks and that the ONLY reason he didn't accept Martin's offer, was that he had no proof to back his claims up and he also knew he was talking bollocks. Just like the ONLY reason you accepted my offer, is because you DO have the evidence
.I was just proving a point, so think this is rather appropriate
- and now who's the TWAT ?
04-02-2005, 07:58 AM
#55
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
Pugo,
You fell for it hook line and sinker. If you see at the end of the offer, there is a little * which you and no-one else picked up on. This was deliberate and was for a little caveat to be added at a later date.
I hoped you would bite, but when you didn't I was most disappointed .
The reason for posting this was that if money was offered up front (like Martin did to the Fiesta guy) and there WAS proof (as I hoped there would be with your claims, as you didn't seem the typre to bullshit) ), then you WOULD take up such an offer, immaterial of whether you had the cash or not (one of your arguements for him not doing so ).
So in effect, you have just proved without a doubt that the guy was talking bollocks and that the ONLY reason he didn't accept Martin's offer, was that he had no proof to back his claims up and he also knew he was talking bollocks. Just like the ONLY reason you accepted my offer, is because you DO have the evidence.
I was just proving a point, so think this is rather appropriate - and now who's the TWAT ?
You fell for it hook line and sinker
. If you see at the end of the offer, there is a little * which you and no-one else picked up on. This was deliberate and was for a little caveat to be added at a later date.I hoped you would bite, but when you didn't I was most disappointed
.The reason for posting this was that if money was offered up front (like Martin did to the Fiesta guy) and there WAS proof (as I hoped there would be with your claims, as you didn't seem the typre to bullshit
) ), then you WOULD take up such an offer, immaterial of whether you had the cash or not (one of your arguements for him not doing so ).So in effect, you have just proved without a doubt that the guy was talking bollocks and that the ONLY reason he didn't accept Martin's offer, was that he had no proof to back his claims up and he also knew he was talking bollocks. Just like the ONLY reason you accepted my offer, is because you DO have the evidence
.I was just proving a point, so think this is rather appropriate
- and now who's the TWAT ?Furry muff.
Well played Mike 
04-02-2005, 08:25 AM
#58
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
Pugo,
You fell for it hook line and sinker. If you see at the end of the offer, there is a little * which you and no-one else picked up on. This was deliberate and was for a little caveat to be added at a later date.
I hoped you would bite, but when you didn't I was most disappointed .
The reason for posting this was that if money was offered up front (like Martin did to the Fiesta guy) and there WAS proof (as I hoped there would be with your claims, as you didn't seem the typre to bullshit) ), then you WOULD take up such an offer, immaterial of whether you had the cash or not (one of your arguements for him not doing so ).
So in effect, you have just proved without a doubt that the guy was talking bollocks and that the ONLY reason he didn't accept Martin's offer, was that he had no proof to back his claims up and he also knew he was talking bollocks. Just like the ONLY reason you accepted my offer, is because you DO have the evidence.
I was just proving a point, so think this is rather appropriate - and now who's the TWAT ?
You fell for it hook line and sinker
. If you see at the end of the offer, there is a little * which you and no-one else picked up on. This was deliberate and was for a little caveat to be added at a later date.I hoped you would bite, but when you didn't I was most disappointed
.The reason for posting this was that if money was offered up front (like Martin did to the Fiesta guy) and there WAS proof (as I hoped there would be with your claims, as you didn't seem the typre to bullshit
) ), then you WOULD take up such an offer, immaterial of whether you had the cash or not (one of your arguements for him not doing so ).So in effect, you have just proved without a doubt that the guy was talking bollocks and that the ONLY reason he didn't accept Martin's offer, was that he had no proof to back his claims up and he also knew he was talking bollocks. Just like the ONLY reason you accepted my offer, is because you DO have the evidence
.I was just proving a point, so think this is rather appropriate
- and now who's the TWAT ?And i saw it and fully expected it
04-02-2005, 08:41 AM
#59
An agreement or contract is based on an offer and an acceptance, and must involve consideration ie a financial gain.
The offer was made by Mike, and the * caveat would only be acceptable as part of the offer if the reason for the * was also listed somewhere in that inital offer.
Pugo has accepted the initial offer, therefore a contract has been formed between both parties. Pugo now has to prove the request listed within the initial offer and if he does so the consideration must then be handed over.
Just by adding * only into the initial offer does not allow a caveat to be added at a later date unless this is written into the inital offer.
Let battle commence
The offer was made by Mike, and the * caveat would only be acceptable as part of the offer if the reason for the * was also listed somewhere in that inital offer.
Pugo has accepted the initial offer, therefore a contract has been formed between both parties. Pugo now has to prove the request listed within the initial offer and if he does so the consideration must then be handed over.
Just by adding * only into the initial offer does not allow a caveat to be added at a later date unless this is written into the inital offer.
Let battle commence
04-02-2005, 08:44 AM
#60
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Originally Posted by chester
An agreement or contract is based on an offer and an acceptance, and must involve consideration ie a financial gain.
The offer was made by Mike, and the * caveat would only be acceptable as part of the offer if the reason for the * was also listed somewhere in that inital offer.
Pugo has accepted the initial offer, therefore a contract has been formed between both parties. Pugo now has to prove the request listed within the initial offer and if he does so the consideration must then be handed over.
Just by adding * only into the initial offer does not allow a caveat to be added at a later date unless this is written into the inital offer.
Let battle commence
The offer was made by Mike, and the * caveat would only be acceptable as part of the offer if the reason for the * was also listed somewhere in that inital offer.
Pugo has accepted the initial offer, therefore a contract has been formed between both parties. Pugo now has to prove the request listed within the initial offer and if he does so the consideration must then be handed over.
Just by adding * only into the initial offer does not allow a caveat to be added at a later date unless this is written into the inital offer.
Let battle commence
04-02-2005, 08:58 AM
#62
Originally Posted by chester
An agreement or contract is based on an offer and an acceptance, and must involve consideration ie a financial gain.
The offer was made by Mike, and the * caveat would only be acceptable as part of the offer if the reason for the * was also listed somewhere in that inital offer.
Pugo has accepted the initial offer, therefore a contract has been formed between both parties. Pugo now has to prove the request listed within the initial offer and if he does so the consideration must then be handed over.
Just by adding * only into the initial offer does not allow a caveat to be added at a later date unless this is written into the inital offer.
Let battle commence
The offer was made by Mike, and the * caveat would only be acceptable as part of the offer if the reason for the * was also listed somewhere in that inital offer.
Pugo has accepted the initial offer, therefore a contract has been formed between both parties. Pugo now has to prove the request listed within the initial offer and if he does so the consideration must then be handed over.
Just by adding * only into the initial offer does not allow a caveat to be added at a later date unless this is written into the inital offer.
Let battle commence
Its the fucking internet for chrsit sake. pmsl at ' a contract has been formed'
04-02-2005, 09:00 AM
#63
An agreement or contract does not have to be in the format of a document - a verbal agreement on any matter, not just a legal one is just as legally binding as anything on paper as long as it can be proved ie witnesses.
If two people had a wager one night that one could piss up a wall higher than the other, and the one who got the highest had to buy the other a pint and other people where present when the wager was handed out, then the winner could legally obtain a pint from the loser.
If it was as easy as just adding a * to a contract as a get out clause then every contract ever written would have one somewhere in the text.
If two people had a wager one night that one could piss up a wall higher than the other, and the one who got the highest had to buy the other a pint and other people where present when the wager was handed out, then the winner could legally obtain a pint from the loser.
If it was as easy as just adding a * to a contract as a get out clause then every contract ever written would have one somewhere in the text.
04-02-2005, 09:09 AM
#65
I'm Finding My Feet Here Now
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kent
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
doesn't have to be A legal document
Offer from one party written or verbel,followed by Acceptance of terms by another party written or verbally = CONTRACT.
Offer from one party written or verbel,followed by Acceptance of terms by another party written or verbally = CONTRACT.
04-02-2005, 09:14 AM
#66
and im just saying wot the fuck is anyone gonna do about it if the other party pulls out of this so called contract. Go to court with a print out if this topic saying look wot mike and pugo have entered into etc. they would get laughed out of the court room.
04-02-2005, 09:15 AM
#67
Just pointing out the facts gents.
My credentials are that I am a consultant QS who writes multi million pound legal contracts on a daily basis - what are yours to support your case?
At the end of the day all I see is Pugo saying dont make assumptions until you know all the facts and getting shot down in flames because he is not one of the establishment, looks as if I am now in the same boat.
All in my opinion obviously
My credentials are that I am a consultant QS who writes multi million pound legal contracts on a daily basis - what are yours to support your case?
At the end of the day all I see is Pugo saying dont make assumptions until you know all the facts and getting shot down in flames because he is not one of the establishment, looks as if I am now in the same boat.
All in my opinion obviously
04-02-2005, 09:29 AM
#71
just finding my feet
Offer from one party written or verbel,followed by Acceptance of terms by another party written or verbally = CONTRACT.
its the net ffs, you write mullti million pound contracts for people, are they all from internet forums
bet you boss must love ya
, does that mean when someone writes " if i heard this one more time im gonna kill myself we should delete his user name and make sure he does it im suprised bernie eccleston aint watching internet forums to make contracts to add a few more quid out of all these bets people do
cheers mate, a educated guy like you can argue the toss for nothing that will ever stem *
*incase ya sue me over my comments onthe internet all thatb was just me typing random bollocks whilst in a funny mood and i am under the age of 14 so i cant be sued by geeks unless my parents are aware
04-02-2005, 10:40 AM
#73
I'm Finding My Feet Here Now
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kent
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Offer from one party written or verbel,followed by Acceptance of terms by another party written or verbally = CONTRACT.
its the net ffs, you write mullti million pound contracts for people, are they all from internet forums
bet you boss must love ya , does that mean when someone writes " if i heard this one more time im gonna kill myself we should delete his user name and make sure he does it
im suprised bernie eccleston aint watching internet forums to make contracts to add a few more quid out of all these bets people do
cheers mate, a educated guy like you can argue the toss for nothing that will ever stem *
*incase ya sue me over my comments onthe internet all thatb was just me typing random bollocks whilst in a funny mood and i am under the age of 14 so i cant be sued by geeks unless my parents are aware
Offer from one party written or verbel,followed by Acceptance of terms by another party written or verbally = CONTRACT.
its the net ffs, you write mullti million pound contracts for people, are they all from internet forums
bet you boss must love ya , does that mean when someone writes " if i heard this one more time im gonna kill myself we should delete his user name and make sure he does it
im suprised bernie eccleston aint watching internet forums to make contracts to add a few more quid out of all these bets people do
cheers mate, a educated guy like you can argue the toss for nothing that will ever stem *
*incase ya sue me over my comments onthe internet all thatb was just me typing random bollocks whilst in a funny mood and i am under the age of 14 so i cant be sued by geeks unless my parents are aware
Just stating what a contract is, not enforcing it
My credentials are that I am a consultant QS who writes multi million pound legal contracts on a daily basis - what are yours to support your case?
Who you work for mate? i was a project manager for AMEC BS london, Been a QS for my Firm For 8 months
04-02-2005, 11:33 AM
#74
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kent
Posts: 6,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chester
Mike - you bubbled me already
damn it - anybody want an xr2 less motor - slightly reduced price.
damn it - anybody want an xr2 less motor - slightly reduced price.
This thread is making my brain hurt!!
04-02-2005, 04:47 PM
#77
Dont they Keith
http://www.thisisbradford.co.uk/brad...usi01.int.html
suggest you read this example then but you obviously have far more legal knowledge then me so I bow to your greater intellect
http://www.thisisbradford.co.uk/brad...usi01.int.html
suggest you read this example then
but you obviously have far more legal knowledge then me so I bow to your greater intellect
04-02-2005, 05:26 PM
#78
Advanced PassionFord User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: benfleet, essex
Posts: 2,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sounds more like Rainbird is trying to retract his bet as the asterisk is only after the record engine bit.....so we shall just do the £2k with the mini if you like?????although as it seems the bet was retracted........I win
all the rainbird fan club.......FPMSL......"yeah we all noticed that mike"
Chester, give up now mate, or you will have the wraith of PF come down on you for daring to question their righteousness , the fact is, i fully expected Mike rainbird to pull out of the bet (not actually expecting such a lame excuse) as all bets from my part of the world are deemed as gentlemens agreements. so by retracting the offer without remit, he is deemed loser, therefore the money is now outstanding, as today i have already spent an amount on the mini preparing it for the challenge!this will be collected either in cash or removal of goods or limbs
Pugo ' who obviously needs to change lodges'
Ps...Mike, just post me FOC one of you charge temp gadgets and i will write the debt off
all the rainbird fan club.......FPMSL......"yeah we all noticed that mike"
Chester, give up now mate, or you will have the wraith of PF come down on you for daring to question their righteousness , the fact is, i fully expected Mike rainbird to pull out of the bet (not actually expecting such a lame excuse) as all bets from my part of the world are deemed as gentlemens agreements. so by retracting the offer without remit, he is deemed loser, therefore the money is now outstanding, as today i have already spent an amount on the mini preparing it for the challenge!this will be collected either in cash or removal of goods or limbs
Pugo ' who obviously needs to change lodges'
Ps...Mike, just post me FOC one of you charge temp gadgets and i will write the debt off
04-02-2005, 06:04 PM
#79
Advanced PassionFord User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: benfleet, essex
Posts: 2,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mike just in case you was interested, here is the boat and driver on its record run!
i dug it out today whilst looking for the paperwork
i dug it out today whilst looking for the paperwork
04-02-2005, 06:15 PM
#80
Pugo,
I KNEW that your claims were true (as I have seen another RS Turbo / NOS powered RWD Mini do an 11s quarter at the Pod ), I was just trying to make the point that anyone with such evidence WOULD rise to such a challenge IF they could back up their claims . I just wanted to prove that point to you . Seems I have and you should now be retracting your comments backing the guy, as if had the proof, he would have done the same as you - afterall, easy money and all that when you know something to be factual....
As I'm a gent, you can have 50p off.
I KNEW that your claims were true (as I have seen another RS Turbo / NOS powered RWD Mini do an 11s quarter at the Pod
), I was just trying to make the point that anyone with such evidence WOULD rise to such a challenge IF they could back up their claims . I just wanted to prove that point to you . Seems I have and you should now be retracting your comments backing the guy, as if had the proof, he would have done the same as you - afterall, easy money and all that when you know something to be factual.... As I'm a gent, you can have 50p off
.