"Chief Rock Sino General" - Freeman guru-to-be?

[Chief2k13]

Well, yes you heard his audio but did you do any research on if this guy was actually in the Army or not ? From what he says, he was hired to conduct research so that would give me access to files and be able to see the movement of documents. So just giving me statements

Google Zeleny and it turns out he is a hard core OPPT follower hand in glove with Heather Tucci Jarraf.

I dunno if he is a hardcore follower but what i asked if whether you can find out if he actually was part of the Army or not ? He is of a 20+ service and now hired to research threats to Canada. So along this research he stumbles upon Admiralty information. So, just seeing if anyone can do some real research on the man

[notorial dissent]

So much for credibility.

I wasn't aware that was even an issue.

Anyone who starts their jabberthon with the statement that obeying a no parking sign is a matter of contract has zero credibility to begin with, and it went downhill from there, if that is even possible. Or even better yet seems to think that a US tax case has any significance or standing before a Canadian court has by that point lost all claim to anything but being a ridiculous waste of time.

[Chief2k13]

that obeying a no parking sign is a matter of contract has zero credibility to begin with, and it went downhill from there, if that is even possible

What are you going on about ? either 1. You cant read or 2. you cannot follow along with the content of what was posted. I am not sure i wish to continue addressing your reply. Thanks for coming out thoe.

[wserra]

In contract terms, attaching the magic sticker, or writing on the cheque "this also pays the rest of my debt" is a change in contract terms. VISA never agreed to be paid in that way, and so you could not enforce that new contract term upon VISA.

Perfectly true, but there is an additional reason why this urban legend doesn't work with credit cards. Most (or, these days, all) consumer credit agreements specifically provide that the issuing institution may accept partial payment without constituting an accord and satisfaction. For example, from the Macy's VISA agreement:

If we accept any late payment or partial payment, whether or not marked as payment in full, it will not affect the due date of any payment due under this Agreement, it will not act as an extension of time or a waiver of any amount then remaining unpaid, and it will not affect any of our rights under this Agreement including our right to declare the entire balance in your Account to be due.

Emphasis supplied.

There is always the danger of overanalyzing nonsense like the stuff discussed in this thread. Horseshit is horseshit, and shouldn't be treated like potential LHC evidence for the Higgs.

[wserra]

the Visa that was balanced to zero was only done through a private court

Ah, Denny's. Did the jurors all get Grand Slams?

[Arthur Rubin]

I've lost track of the context, if it was ever here at all, but a sign in or near a parking space may be an offer of contract, which the parker agrees to by parking there. This is in addition to any laws alluded to by the sign, and it may apply if the parking space is on a street.

And, of course, the sign may not be indicative of the law. I recall a Nolo Press book, I believe How to Win Your Case in Traffic Court, which mentions an instance where the "No Parking" sign was placed after the car was parked.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Why thank you, i dont mind a bit of logical conversation as long as it doesnt turn into a name calling contest. I read all the replies and will reply in kind, however i am a bit busy with my newest interview of Winston Shrout.

Explains much.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Why thank you, i dont mind a bit of logical conversation as long as it doesnt turn into a name calling contest.

Thank you Chief Rock Sino General. I will do my very best to be polite, and if I offend again, please know that was not my intention. I think learning is so very, very important, and I am always glad when people try to learn more about things that which can affect their lives, such as the law.

I read all the replies and will reply in kind, however i am a bit busy with my newest interview of Winston Shrout.

Winston Shrout is an interesting man. I have watched some video recordings of his seminars. Do you think he is right that all courts are only Admiralty Law courts? What do you think about his "Accept For Value" ideas - do those work? Do you know a court case where those ideas have been tried, and worked?

There is a message thread on Quatloos about legal trouble Mr. Shrout has had over the years (viewtopic.php?f=30&t=9329&p=157610). It looks like he has gone bankrupt, lost many cases in court, and had his land seized - and that those "Admiralty Courts" actually had jurisdiction over him.

One question i will answer is, the Visa that was balanced to zero was only done through a private court(personal documents sent) (court=home of a sovereign, dont you live in your body ?), meaning we sent off the cheq, Visa cashed it, it was posted on the online banking statement.

I am still not sure I understand what a "private court" is. Do you mean that each person is their own "court"? What happens when two "private courts" do not agree on something? Like if one "sovereign private court" thinks his neighbor, who is also a "sovereign private court", is playing music too loud?

I am hoping I can provide you some information that might help you understand why I am confused on how a "private court" would have authority to do things which look, to me, to be unfair, like refusing to pay one's debts. In Canada there is a category of courts called courts of inherent jurisdiction. In your province the British Columbia Supreme Court is a court of inherent jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction courts are a little unusual, because they have the authority to investigate and fix anything that is wrong. There are some exceptions to what they can do but not much - they cannot, for example, comment on policy decisions like whether Canada should have or should not have intervened in Afghanistan. That's up to politicians. What an inherent jurisdiction court could do though is test whether that was done according to the law, or not.

I know I am probably being a little long-winded here, but I think this is an important point for the topics you seem to find interesting. Courts of inherent jurisdiction cannot be 'kept out' of your life. Let us say you and a friend make a bargain and also say "and we agree as private sovereign people we'll never go to a court about this." Nevertheless, your friend gets mad, and says you cheated him. Your friend could go into the British Columbia Supreme Court and say "Chief Rock Sino General cheated me - I want fairness." If you held up a written agreement that said "no courts", the judge would just shrug his or her shoulders and tell you that does not matter. That inherent jurisdiction court always has the right to evaluate whether the laws of Canada are followed, and whether in the court's opinion you did your part of the bargain.

If you would like to read a little about what courts say about inherent jurisdiction there is a nice summery in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 at paras. 351-378. This is not a subject most people know much about, and I certainly did not understand this property of the courts until I started learning about law.

One thing that is important about inherent jurisdiction is that you never can escape it. Here is a case where a Freeman-on-the-Land said he was only subject to the UCADIA law (A.N.B. v. Hancock, 2013 ABQB 9 7 (http://canlii.ca/t/fwx39)) - I bet you've heard about UCADIA. At paras. 83-88 the judge says that does not work - UCADIA law, whatever that actually amounts to, is subject to the Court's own scrutiny:

Stating that one has set themselves, unilaterally, under a different and imaginary law has no effect on the jurisdiction and authority of the Canadian state and courts. Even if the “One Heaven Supreme Court” and its “Canon Law” had some relevance in Canada, then this Court’s inherent jurisdiction would expand to make this Court the appeal court for this “legal” domain: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., 1996 CanLII 215 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 495, at para. 6, 136 D.L.R. (4th) 289. Thus, the UCADIA materials are not merely a house built on a foundation of sand, but a house built on the illusion of a foundation of sand. A.N.B. cannot legally purport to ‘opt out’ and ‘deny his consent” via this mechanism.

So what I am trying to explain is that it doesn't matter if you believe you can be a "private court" and be separate from the Canadian legal system. You can't - the courts of inherent jurisdiction will always have the authority to scrutinize your conduct. And you always are subject to the law of some country. That's a concept called "domicile". There is a very long but I think interesting judgment on domicile that involves a Canadian guy who made millions selling detergent in Japan, Foote Estate (Re), 2009 ABQB 654 (http://canlii.ca/t/26prb). Eldon Foote really did not like to pay taxes - and he found a legal way to avoid that for the most part! Of course, it also meant he spent a lot of his life living on a small island near Australia. Eldon had a pretty interesting life - you might have fun reading this judgment.

The copy of the cashed cheq was therefore sent to visa showing their objective conduct, which shows they agreed to the terms of the cheq. Now, a letter was sent along with the copy of the cheq, the debtors statement of account giving visa 20days to rebut or send a verified authenticated record that rebuts the debtors records. The letter more less was a memorandum of the contract they entered into with liabilities against them for trying to collect on an account that has already been agreed as settled and closed, which would constitute fraud.

I have read about this approach of sending notices to create a 'contract' and address debts. I am pretty sure it does not work in Canada. A couple years ago a guy named Barry Skrapec tried to do the same thing to get rid of a line of credit: Royal Bank of Canada v. Skrapec, 2011 BCSC 1827 (http://canlii.ca/t/fq9sc). It didn't work. Here's what the judge said about sending those letters and notices at para. 73:

This is a simple case of where somebody borrowed money, they had the benefit of that contract, and they have not paid it back. There is no merit in the law to the defence. There is no merit in Canadian law, in common sense, in logic, or even morally. They agreed to do something they did not do. BARRY A. SKRAPEC owes the bank the money.

Mr. Skrapec was not only told that he had to repay the money he owed, he had to pay some of the bank's legal costs: para. 76.

Mr. Skrapec still disagreed with the outcome so he appealed to the British Columbia Court of Appeal: Royal Bank of Canada v. Skrapec, 2012 BCCA 10 (http://canlii.ca/t/fprkt). The court said the trial judge was right:

[8] The judgment in the plaintiff’s favour was granted on a proper evidentiary foundation. There was evidence on which the Court could find that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the amount claimed. Although the defendant advanced arguments against the plaintiff’s claim, the judge found that there was nothing that could constitute a defence in law.

[9] On this appeal the defendant has not identified any arguable issue or ground of appeal on which the judgment appealed from could be varied or set aside. To permit any further steps to be taken in the appeal would be to countenance an abuse of the Court’s process.

[10] I would quash the appeal as devoid of any merit. The plaintiff is entitled to its costs of this proceeding.

Now what happened to Mr. Skrapec is very important to you and anyone who lives in British Columbia because a higher 'appeal' court has said the Skrapec technique does not work. That means that now if you try to argue the same kind of thing at a trial level court, like the B.C. Provincial Court or Supreme Court, all the bank or VISA has to do is show the judge those two Skrapec decisions and the trial judge has no choice but must reject your argument. That's part of the principles of stare decisis (more crummy latin) that lower courts must follow what a higher court says are the rules.

This idea of writing stuff on cheques and sending letters arguing debts shows up all over the world. I have never read a court decision that said it worked. Here's another interesting case where someone tried this kind of thing: Banque Toronto-Dominion c. Demers, 2012 QCCS 2911 (http://canlii.ca/t/frwpr). The woman wrote "FOR DISCHARGE OF DEBT, EFT ONLY" on cheques, one for $800,000, the other for $142,000. The court said that did not make the debt go away.

I think it's only fair I mention that the law in Quebec and the rest of Canada isn't always the same, but at least we know that this scheme to make debts disappear does not work in Quebec.

I hope you found this interesting and perhaps helpful. Again, I really encourage you to read case law. If you want to win in court, that is the tool you want to use.

SMS Möwe

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Here are some quotes from my contract books and a definition of an agreement

As contract law stipulates,
“An acceptance by the offeree to the offer may be written, oral or implied. The implied is the offeree’s actions or conduct, which can indicate acceptance of an offer.
1.Where an offeror has stated or given the offeree reason to understand assent may be manifested by silence or inaction, and the offeree in remaining silent and inactive intends to accept the offer.
2.When all that is required of the offeree is performance, a unilateral contract is formed upon performance. The mode of acceptance is the conduct of actions of the offeree. No exchange of responses is necessary to indicate assent to the offer; rather, performance indicates the acceptance

This is why it is dangerous to rely on books about the law. Perhaps this is something you found in a book about contract law, but in Canada, it's wrong. This is explained in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 at paras. 465-472. Very briefly, the law in Canada is that for a contract to be accepted the person who receives the contract offer must communicate that acceptance. That decision quotes a bunch of law texts about contract law - it might be helpful to check those out.

As for the U.S v Tweel quote, sure it dealt with a tax issue however, i feel it doesnt matter the issue but what was said in regards to being silent. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered is intentionally misleading”.

The Tweel quote was not just about a tax issue, it was about the legal duties of an state official who had been given special authority by the state. I find it very hard to see how that is the same or could apply in a contract setting. Different legal contexts lead to different duties, don't they? For example, when Mr. Green was being tried in court the Crown had to prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt". But I'm sure you know that when you go to court and argue about who is right or wrong on how a contract works, then the test is "a balance of probabilities" - who is more likely correct.

So, if i send off a document giving a company 20days to respond or to provide me something like a verified contract or a authenticated record of some kind. So 20 days goes by and they dont provide me with anything, so by going silent or not responding could lead me to believe they maybe ignoring me or leaving my inquiry unanswered. So if we are in business or in a contract of some kind like a mortgage i believe they are to provide me with whatever i request in reasonable terms. Even thoe its quite well known that many banks sell the original promissory note because its a security to which i can only assume they deposited into a trust of some kinda as an asset. Thoughts /?

My previous post talks about how those things were argued and rejected in the Barry Skrapec cases. Again, I hope those are helpful.

SMS Möwe

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Thanks for all the case law that you referenced i have plenty to read now and gain some perspective. Now, do you think or believe there is a private side or public side in society ? If there is a private side, meaning private contracts between people and corporations and public side being judges(justices in Canada as there is no real judge from what i can gather) police officers etc...

It's all one big thing in Canada, all subject to the same law, and the same courts. Sure, you can enter into a contract with someone else, but the principles that drive how that contract works and will be enforced flow from legislation (rules from the government) and case law principles (rules from the court). Please see my previous commentary on "courts of inherent jurisdiction".

Incidentally, have you ever visited this website?

• http://www.privatesectoract.com/

I have almost never seen anything so very silly! I think "Ty Griffiths" wants to create a "private side", but I'm not sure how he could, particularly with that costume and his crazy videos. I'm sure you agree.

By the way, the terms "Judge" and "Justice" are titles that flow from legislation that sets up and organizes courts - and sometimes on tradition. In British Columbia one such law is the Supreme Court Act, RSBC 1996, c 443 (http://canlii.ca/t/84d8). You can see how all the decision makers in that court are "judges", but their titles use the word "Justice", like the "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court". The title used for a court decision maker actually doesn't really matter - what matters is the authority they get from legislation or via being appointed to a court of inherent jurisdiction.

... Now i also asked whether or not she was aware of the treaties(international contracts) her King/Queen entered into with my nation, which is the Cayuga Nation part of the Five Nations or haudenosaunee..which our two row wampum belt says their LAWS are not to interfere with us and our laws wont interfere with them and we wont try to steer each others vessel. So, we have any other treaties that show we are not to be in their courts period. Anyways she was very ignorant to that and had no knowledge and admitted so on the her bench. So, she lacked the ability to make any legal determination on anything to do the case i was in court for.

My understanding is that the treaties between Canada and the aboriginal people who resided in Canada are not contracts. Rather, they are a special kind of relationship, and flow from the history of how the Crown has interacted with the indigenous populations. It's a complex issue - and I am not an expert in it - but I think you might find it interesting to see what the Supreme Court of Canada has said about this interrelationship. A useful starting point may be R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] 2 SCR 507 (http://canlii.ca/t/1fr8r). The court talks a great deal about how the rights recognized by treaty are now protected by the Canadian Constitution.

As for the "Two Row Wampum Belt", I see that Canadian courts have said that does not make an aboriginal person separate or immune from the law, for example M.M. (Re), 2013 ABPC 59 (http://canlii.ca/t/fwzmw).

Also, you suggesting white mans laws have jurisdiction over our nations citizens ?

Yes I do. Here is a recent case where two aboriginal persons claimed they could ignore traffic legislation because of their heritage: R. v. Day Chief, 2007 ABCA 22 (http://canlii.ca/t/1q9hd). The court said no. This decision cites a bunch of cases at para. 7 that discuss the reasons for that in more detail, including some Supreme Court of Canada cases on the point. You should read those - every court in Canada must follow the rules in those cases.

I think it is interesting how the situation here is so similar to Freemen-on-the-Land who 'travel' and get themselves in such trouble.

... i am not a Canadian, i do have a person i use in Canada but i am not a person nor an Indian at all nor do i accept the term or the term of First Nations.

If you are presently located in Canada you are subject to the laws of Canada. If you are a human being then you are a "person", as that is defined in law. Please read Meads v. Meads.

As for the terms "Indian" and "First Nations", I know I have a difficult time understanding when I should and should not use words like that, or other labels. I have tried to avoid what I suspect may be offensive forms when I have answered your questions - again, I ask you to please appreciate my honest intention not be in any way rude or insulting.

SMS Möwe

[wserra]

Möwe, you got . . . heart.

[Burnaby49]

Möwe, you got . . . heart.

He's the Bizzaro world version of Lawdog.

[AndyK]

don't speak ill of the defenseless banned.

[Chief2k13]

Before i reply, i wonder. What do you do for work? why your interest in the law ? Möwe you seem to be the only one who can offer any kind of reasonable response. I do have more questions about your reply and thoughts. Mainly treaties are not what you were suggesting, if anything you really should look into it a bit more. Canada for one did not sign any treaties because Canada did not exist at the time they were drawn up or agreed to. Also, do you really think Canada is a corporation or Country ? If country please let me know what a country defines as in the eyes of the international community? from what i gather, a country needs Language, Land and culture nothing Canada has from my peoples point of view. Now English from England area and French from France, both more of a dialect than a language from what i've read. So as for culture i dont believe there is any, Canada seems to only ride off the coat tails of other cultures none they have unless you can indicate some? Land, stolen land cannot be affirmed as their land, its never their land many nations asked for an original bill of sale that would indicate a contract for sale was actually established.

There is more going on here than meets the eye and lots to learn when it comes to Canada and its use of the Church to rape lil children and murder babies and torture children for speaking their tongue or trying to practice their "culture", an attempt to have them forget their culture and language which btw they have done a very good job. Anyways i will reply to your reply once im done reading a few more chapters of trust laws.

Oh btw if poster are not going to give a sensible reply or comment on the content as it was posted, there is no real point in trying to cause argument or distraction from what we are trying to express on this forum. Your replies will be disregarded.

https://www.reverbnation.com/chiefrock2 ... %2F1832435
my other site for my music

[Dr. Caligari]

Your replies will be disregarded.

Sorry, under U.S. v. Tweel your failure to respond constitutes fraud, for which my private Quatloosian court will sentence you to be lashed with a wet noodle.

[Famspear]

Your replies will be disregarded.

Sorry, under U.S. v. Tweel your failure to respond constitutes fraud, for which my private Quatloosian court will sentence you to be lashed with a wet noodle.

Dang! I hate it when this happens!

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Before i reply, i wonder. What do you do for work? why your interest in the law ?

I wish I felt comfortable answering this question but unfortunately I am not. This is not me attempting to be rude in any way, but rather the same unfortunate reason why you will probably find many people on Quatloos unwilling to say much beside generalities about about who and what they are.

There are people associated with the Sovereign Citizen and Freeman-on-the-Land movements who are, bluntly, unpleasant and not particularly stable. There have been threats and violence in the past against people who the Sovereigns and Freeman consider to be their "enemies".

I am absolutely not saying I think you are one of these people - our conversation here has been very pleasant and interesting - and I have enjoyed it. But I think you are very aware of these people who are not such 'safe neighbors'. For example, we both know about some individuals in British Columbia who decided to call themselves "peace officers" and enforce what they say is the 'real justice'. Presumably after they arrest people then they will administer the punishment these "peace officers" think is appropriate. It's pretty scary for any of us that there are people who believe they can make up and enforce whatever rules they like. I have my friends and family to think about, so that is why I choose to not answer your question. I hope you understand.

This is very unfortunate, because like my namesake I have what I think has been an interesting set of travels and adventures that I hope would be fun to share. Personally I very much enjoy thoughtful conversations over a pitcher or two of beer, but I know that is just not really feasible in these circumstances.

Möwe you seem to be the only one who can offer any kind of reasonable response.

Thank you for that! Actually I have an advantage as I am Canadian and most of the folks here are from the United States. If you ever want to know about the intricacies of U.S. tax law - the people here are wizards. I try to follow their discussions but often my head is left spinning.

But if we are lucky another Quatloosian, tm169, will make an appearance. He is from the U.K. and knows a great deal about the approach to contract law in that country. British law is important for us in Canada because not only is Canadian law 'grown out of' British law, until 1949 the Supreme Court of Canada wasn't, well, actually 'supreme'. Instead the highest court of Canada was in the U.K., a court called the Privy Counsel. And in any case, Canadian courts often pay attention to ideas that emerge in the U.K. I'm not sure how much influence goes the other way, though.

I do have more questions about your reply and thoughts. Mainly treaties are not what you were suggesting, if anything you really should look into it a bit more.

That is an area of law about which I have done some reading, but it is very complex. I agree I probably have much more to learn before I have a 'solid foundation' in the area. It's also a subject that keeps changing! Did you read the Supreme Court of Canada decision (Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 SCC 14 (http://canlii.ca/t/fwfft) about Metis land rights in Manitoba? A completely new way of thinking about how Canada and aboriginal people interact - very interesting.

Canada for one did not sign any treaties because Canada did not exist at the time they were drawn up or agreed to.

I know that many treaties with eastern Canadian indian groups are very old, but I thought the eleven "numbered" treaties were signed after Canada came into existence (1867) and the Northwest Territories became part of Canada (1869). Perhaps I am missing a distinction?

Also, do you really think Canada is a corporation or Country ? If country please let me know what a country defines as in the eyes of the international community? from what i gather, a country needs Language, Land and culture nothing Canada has from my peoples point of view. Now English from England area and French from France, both more of a dialect than a language from what i've read. So as for culture i dont believe there is any, Canada seems to only ride off the coat tails of other cultures none they have unless you can indicate some?

I understand Canada is a country. Countries are, in certain ways, a kind of funny thing, because they are a 'gang of peers'. To be a country you have to be recognized by other countries. Arguably these days full membership in the U.N. is what makes a country a country, but historically it's more that 'gang of peers' model.

Your comments about language and culture make me suspect you may be confusing the terms "nation" and "country". A nation is a community of people who share common cultural things like language, religion, history, and so on. Sometimes a "nation" and a "country" overlap - just like you said with France. The U.K. is more complex, because it is a multi-nation state and has three separate "nations": the English, Welsh, and Scottish. Perhaps add the Cornish to that list. Belgium is like that too - the "country" is Belgium, but it has two main nations in it, the Flemish and Walloons.

There are really good wikipedia articles on this subject. I don't claim to be an expert in these subjects, perhaps we're lucky and someone with a political sciences background can help us understand more.

There is more going on here than meets the eye and lots to learn when it comes to Canada and its use of the Church to rape lil children and murder babies and torture children for speaking their tongue or trying to practice their "culture", an attempt to have them forget their culture and language which btw they have done a very good job.

I am not an aboriginal person, so I don't think I can really claim to fully understand what has happened to the indigenous people in Canada and sadly in other countries as well. Nevertheless, I listen, read, and try to understand. To me it seems what has happened is often tragic, and I have no question that terrible mistakes have been made in the past. I hope no Canadian would deny that, and we all would try to make the future better.

What worries me most is how to get there. Quite a few years ago I worked for about a year with an Indian band counsel on a couple projects. It was the worst job of my life, because I wanted to help make things better for that community. We achieved absolutely nothing, except that some band counsel members got some free perks, and some of their relatives got paid for tasks that did no good at all. Without question that was the only job where I can say I made the world a little worse for being there. I didn't like that at all, and sometimes still ask how I could have helped achieve a better outcome.

On a larger scale, I have little idea how to solve issues like the frequency of crime, particularly gangs, or health issues such as Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder that I know are a very serious problem, particularly for Indians on reserve. Do you get upset with the lawyers who represent aboriginal communities and who run up huge bills fighting lawsuits paid by aboriginal people's scarce resources? It's something that bothers me a lot.

Anyways i will reply to your reply once im done reading a few more chapters of trust laws.

Enjoy your studies! I will probably not be replying for a number of days because I have some personal and professional things to take care of. I hope you don't mind.

SMS Möwe

[tm169]

Hi all

Thought I'd check in, in response to Möwe's kind words.

@ChiefRock
Can I say thank you for coming on here to defend your views. Whilst there may be little that we agree on, I respect you engaging in a debate about law and perhaps we will both learn something.

My interest in law stems from previous employment as a paralegal in financial services with particular emphasis on mortgages, a masters degree in English Law with a particular focus on Contract, Trusts and Marine Insurance. I'm currently training as a barrister.

One starting point I spied on your Facebook page (which I imagine Canadian and English law are united) is "foisted unilateral agreements" or tacit contracts.

My understanding is one can't create a legally binding contract nor can you prove a set of facts exists by creating a "tacit" agreement.

It is no different from acceptance of a contract by silence or where there is no meeting of minds and no intention to create legal relations.

Felthouse v Bindley (1862) is a good starting point and available online:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/CP/1862/J35.html

[JamesVincent]

Hi all

My understanding is one can't create a legally binding contract nor can you prove a set of facts exists by creating a "tacit" agreement.

Welcome back TM. In other words, you saying that there is a contract does not mean there is a binding contract. Even a verbal contract has to have two people, or more, verbally agreeing to the contract. And there has to be an all around intent to enter into the contract, not just one person saying, "if you do this you owe me blata blata bruh." Or " If I do this then I don't owe you blata blata." There has to be an actual interchange of ideas or agreements between the parties. You cannot force someone else to accept a contract YOU created, and, no matter what you think, obeying the law is not obeying or entering into a contract. We went through this awhile ago in a different thread, don't remember which one, about consent, tacit or otherwise. You can say all day long how obeying a traffic sign makes you accept a contract but obeying traffic laws is not a contract, it is a law. Punishable by the removal of the privilege of needing to obey traffic laws.

[Backo]

I've located an Australian case (Queensland Supreme Court) which deals with an example of a cheque for a lesser amount than the claim being paid "in full and final settlement". See http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/ ... 96-129.pdf.

Amos is something of a notorious litigator in Queensland. He tried to pay a $4000 odd bill by a $1,200 cheque accompanied by a letter stating the cheque was tendered in full and final settlement. As was the bank's practice it detached the cheque from the letter and banked the cheque. The appllant (Amos) claimed an accord and satisfaction.

The Court disagreed:

By banking the cheque, the respondent complied with the terms of the offer (as
the appellant claims it to be) but without intending to do so; and the appellant knew that the respondent was not intending to act on the faith of, or in reliance upon the offer. The result here is that it is the offeree ... who claims not to be bound by the terms of the offer; but, from the standpoint of the principle involved, that can make no difference to the result. The appellant cannot hold the respondent bound by an act which he knows, and knew all along, was not intended to operate as acceptance of his offer. Because of his actual knowledge of the real intention of Citibank, any inference, which might otherwise have been drawn, that banking the cheque involved acceptance of the offer is not available to him because he knew it was not in fact intended to have that effect.