Ha fun!

What is and what is not allowed? The folks in here will sort it out.
Case Law seems to be the evil wicked witch of the west at the moment.
Post Reply
User avatar
Ian Pedlar
Site Admin
Posts: 623
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 8:03 pm
Location: Bournemouth

Ha fun!

Post by Ian Pedlar » Sun Jun 22, 2014 9:35 pm

I was always thinking about these officials, and while I love them I was always worried about their own interpretation of the law.

and was thinking that it must be an offence to make up your own law.

I found it.

It's called treason

an ancient law that even predates the pedlar law

If they make up their own law that is not real law then they are guilty of treason

Paul B Virgo
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 3:48 pm

Re: Ha fun!

Post by Paul B Virgo » Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:00 am

Oh my :-) armed with that information we can indeed have some gentle fun with them. My father was excellent at it , he'd tie them in knots --when approached by any one in 'officialdom' he'd whip out the certificate , show them and then say " Now Sir , may I see your accreditation. What you have non ? Then how am I to know you are who you say you are ? It is very dangerous to accost people on the street you know and I do believe could be construed as an offence against the person but you look like a nice man so on this occasion I shall not be calling a warranted police officer and reporting you . Good day to you Sir as I must away and tend to my lawful business ". :-)

Regards Paul.

Izalias
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun May 17, 2015 1:39 pm

Re: Ha fun!

Post by Izalias » Sun Jun 07, 2015 5:45 am

I will preface this by stating that I am no legal expert and that this message is merely my opinion based on what I have read and is without prejudice to any acts or facts.

With that in mind, this seems pretty clear cut.

The Pedlars Certificate, as far as I can tell, is a contract between, at most, a representative of the Crown or, at least, the Chief Officer of Police and yourself.

But Izalias: I hear you say. There is no contract.

I shouldn't need to remind any possessor of a Pedlars certificate that:

A PEDLAR'S CERTIFICATE IS BOUGHT (CONSIDERATION) WHERE THE PURCHASER AGREES TO THE TERMS OF THE PEDLAR'S ACT (AGREEMENT) AND THE RECEIPT IS SIGNED BY THE CHIEF CONSTABLE (CONTRACTUAL INTENTION) AND HAS OBLIGATIONS WHICH ARE ENFORCED AND RECOGNISED BY LAW.

"A contract is an agreement giving rise to obligations which are enforced or recognised by law. 2. In common law, there are 3 basic essentials to the creation of a contract: (i) agreement; (ii) contractual intention; and (iii) consideration." Google on contracts.

Not only is the Pedlar's certificate purchased and is therefore enforceable under the sale of goods act but the certificate is, in it's nature, a receipt! Read it, it has a receipt number printed on it.

Question: So what happens when a council tells you that you cannot Peddle goods in a certain area.

Tortious Interference with a third party contract.

They are not the police chief, they are a government body which seeks to limit your statutory powers. The council are not on the same level as originator of Police Powers or the Pedlar's act. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act gives the police powers of search and arrest which normal citizen's would be breaching the law by performing and, similarly, The Pedlar's Act, grants the Pedlar's Certificate holder powers of selling from place to place, town to town or other men's houses which normal citizen's would be breaching the law by performing. Neither act is above the other in terms of enforcement, they are both equal and they both grant powers. Sure one does instruct submission to elements of the other but in the eyes of the law, they are on par, although one might argue that the Pedlar's act may have more heft, by virtue of age.


Question: What happens when the council tells you what the Pedlar's Act states and omits going from place to place or neglects to mention case law?


Fraud by misrepresentation

It is also the case that misrepresenting the law, could result in a Section 2 breech of the Fraud Act 2006 or fraud by misrepresentation.

One must be ever so careful when making statements about limitations of Pedlar's because of all the traders who are operating, they are not only CRB checked, empowered to trade in a certain manner under statute law but they are also contractually AUTHORISED (given authority to act as a Pedlar within the terms of the Act) by the "Chief Officer of Police".

Let us not forget the Divisional Court findings or Hutchinson J and Woolf J (as he then was) which offers a description of what it was to be a pedlar and, in particular, a passage which is often cited in the judgement of Hutchinson as follows.
"The popular conception of a pedlar is someone who goes around selling things or services, who sells on the move; he is an itinerant seller.
If the distinction is to be encapsulated in an aphorism, one might say that a Pedlar is one who trades as he travels as distinct from one who merely travels to trade.

There may also be questions of how long one remains stationary, just because a Pedlar stops, does not automatically transfer the pedlar into the realms of street trading as the council would try to have the lay person believe, for it is in the councils interest to make a gain for themselves and a loss for the Pedlar in viewing the Pedlar's power to trade as not exempt from Street Trading laws and in doing so, attempting to levy a council mandated tax on an otherwise exempt Pedlar. Insisting that a Pedlar is not peddling unless constantly moving around. It suits the council to omit the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council v Dunn findings, which found that the respondent 'was not street trading from a fixed position as he moved up and down the road in the course of selling and offered for sale his balloons', a case which was again cited by Judge Wilkie in Croydon v Burdon. A case and a follow up, which gives precedence to the notion that a Pedlar may in fact, do laps of the street as a Pedlar seems to need only be moving and these cases against Pedlar's rely on these precedents as is the case against Burdon, on the 'crucial point' of looking to the periods of time which a Pedlar is stationary. One should also notes the courts implications, during the case, which implies that a Pedlar is in fact, entitles to wander and accost people in the street. In reality, a Pedlar oughtn't attract customers to his or herself, however, a it is reasonable to suggest that people may chose to move closer to a Pedlar and, as the case law seems to indicate, the only distinction between a street trader and a Pedlar is the movement factor.

So, remember, the Pedlar's Act is enacted UK wide, a third party making statements about what you can and cannot do once granted the powers of a Pedlar within the scope of the act, may be attempting to interfere with your contractually enabled power to act within the scope of the act.

What law does lying about the law fall under?


Whilst it is amusing to think that councils will try to limit the powers of a Pedlar, one must remember, there is a contract based on parliamentary law and the police chief, the CPS would do well to not touch it with a barge pole and it is no wonder that so many cases against Pedlar's fail in court.

Don't forget, the Pedlar's act is not the only thing that defines a Pedlar.

Case law does too and councils try their damnedest to get Pedlar's powers restricted, by fraudulently representing a pedlar as a doorstep sellar, but giving advice about a Pedlar's powers, whilst failing to note the case law's definitions can be seen as fraudulent given the right circumstances. Especially because the council seeks to use their authority to do so and threatens to charge a Pedlar for trading on the streets without licence, which is the definition of attempting to make a gain for themselves and a loss for the Pedlar, especially if that loss constitutes money, or powers afforded under the Pedlar's Act.

Post Reply