ECJ; it's ok to view your Premier League matches in the UK on Greek TV.

[Aimless]

I'd like to point out that she did in fact lose in an English court. It's not like it went straight to the ECJ

[earthJoker]

Is it even possible to go straight to the ECJ?

[Aimless]

It probably isn't but the point is that this particular rule was, in fact, enforced by a govt. I don't know whether the same rule has been enforced by the same government prior to this ruling by the ECJ but it wouldn't be strange if it had.

[CitizenCain]

Okay, let's try the explanation again:

A contract needs no "enforcing" when both sides are under the assumption that the contract is valid. Because during that period of agreement they both adhere to the contract.

Okay, now one side does not adhere to the contract, let's say, does not pay the money owed. The other party then will contact a collection agency (not a government one) which will then try to collect. Government is still not involved.

ONLY when you involve a lawyer who THEN drags the whole thing to court, THEN the government becomes involved - at your express wishes. And that's the point when a contract will be checked if it's actually valid. There's NO "government enforcement" before that point.

Or in other words, you agree with me.

Thanks for saying it long, though. In you own words, there is no enforcement of contracts whatsoever until the government gets involved, so it would seem you agree with my statement, regardless of whether or not you like it or are willing to admit it.

I'd like to point out that she did in fact lose in an English court. It's not like it went straight to the ECJ

Indeed. Thanks, Minxy. And it's not like the British pub owners were losing their shirts because these monopoly contracts were unenforced, etc. The very reason for the lack of cross-border media services that Hazir was complaining about in this thread is precisely that these monopoly contracts were enforced as valid and used against anyone who dared to try to let media pass through arbitrary lines on a map.

Khen and EJ's assertions to the contrary just... make absolutely no sense to me. Like hearing someone trying to argue that the sky is green... um, OK... what do you even say to that?

[Nessus]

um, OK... what do you even say to that?

Everyone all together now, 3, 2, 1....


j0999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999s!!

[RandBlade]

You're getting it wrong. The government was not "enforcing" those contracts. Because unless one party complains, the government does nothing unless it's criminally illegal.

It usually went like this: You closed a contract with a company. Company includes an illegal clause (under civil law!) but proceeds to tell you that it is legal. You cave because you are also led to belive it's legal.

Wrong, the government had enforced the contract. The landlady had been taken to court and lost her case in court, the ECJ case was an appeal. Also the ECJ does not represent the government.

[CitizenCain]

Everyone all together now, 3, 2, 1....


j0999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999s!!

Thank you for another high-quality contribution to yet another discussion. In appreciation of your efforts, I present you with a contribution of slightly greater value:

1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679 : 1

[Nessus]

j9999999999999999999s

[Khendraja'aro]

Wrong, the government had enforced the contract. The landlady had been taken to court and lost her case in court, the ECJ case was an appeal. Also the ECJ does not represent the government.

My point actually was that the government doesn't automatically enforce contracts.

[Dreadnaught]

Cain, not cool. That just isn't productive and I'm truncating that post, it's just spammy.

Nessus, same thing. People are complaining that you've taken the "j9999999999999999999s" thing too far, possibly further than Cain. Please cut it out.

[Nessus]

Cain, not cool. That just isn't productive and I'm truncating that post, it's just spammy.

Nessus, same thing. People are complaining that you've taken the "j9999999999999999999s" thing too far, possibly further than Cain. Please cut it out.

As I said to Randy, if I'm the one getting banned for Kain co-opting the Holocaust, I'm very much okay with that.

[earthJoker]

Nessus, same thing. People are complaining that you've taken the "j9999999999999999999s" thing too far, possibly further than Cain. Please cut it out.

Further than Cain? You think that is possible?

[earthJoker]

Wrong, the government had enforced the contract. The landlady had been taken to court and lost her case in court, the ECJ case was an appeal. Also the ECJ does not represent the government.

I explicitly wrote in post #24 that I don't see the local courts decision as an enforcement. Because local courts are often overthrown on issues without precedences. Of course you can disagree on that. It's a very personal view. What I claimed in the post, is that the supreme court (or however you call it) of the UK actually didn't made a decision but asked the ECJ straight away.

[RandBlade]

I explicitly wrote in post #24 that I don't see the local courts decision as an enforcement. Because local courts are often overthrown on issues without precedences. Of course you can disagree on that. It's a very personal view. What I claimed in the post, is that the supreme court (or however you call it) of the UK actually didn't made a decision but asked the ECJ straight away.

And I think you're wrong, given that I would estimate at least about 99.9% of enforcement of the law happens at lower level courts than the ECJ etc then surely they are the main courts to view as enforcement?

It is extraordinairily rare for an issue to reach the Supreme Court (that is now its name) or the ECJ. Very, very unusual to get that far. The Supreme Court and ECJ have more of a job of settling matters of (or overturning the) law, than actually enforcing it.

[Aimless]

And I think you're wrong, given that I would estimate at least about 99.9% of enforcement of the law happens at lower level courts than the ECJ etc then surely they are the main courts to view as enforcement?

He did say issues without precedence.

[earthJoker]

He did say issues without precedence.

Thank you very much. You just 100% covered my answer.

I actually don't know if there is a precedence to this case. I just didn't heard of any in the news.

[CitizenCain]

Cain, not cool. That just isn't productive and I'm truncating that post, it's just spammy.

May as well delete it entirely. The 314 lines was the big clue announcing what those yummy numbers are. Without that clue, it *is* just spam. You made my yummy Nessie treat into a nasty meat-byproduct.

Also, I notice you're not thanking me for resisting the thought to post the first 3,141 lines, which would have made a much better clue. No one appreciates the small favors anymore.