finally in the showroom

Status
Not open for further replies.
biometrics said:
What was it insured for?
Click to expand...

what are you talking about? you do know what happened right?

I had a claim against a person who happened to be insured, whether I was insured or not is irrelevant

you do know how this works right?
 
saturnz said:
what are you talking about? you do know what happened right?

I had a claim against a person who happened to be insured, whether I was insured or not is irrelevant

you do know how this works right?
Click to expand...

So you were driving around uninsured?
 
This thread is gold ... please don't let it die...
 
biometrics said:
Questioning? Lol.
Click to expand...

Splinter accused me of being a liar, but you are interested in whether I was insured or not.

So how are you going to believe my answers if I am a liar? should that not be resolved first?
 
saturnz said:
you seem like a spiteful person, so I just want to make sure I have my bases covered, especially in terms of having a valid claim to the 10k and you not coming on this forum again and not disclosing details for spite
Click to expand...

Cool. Bring the bases then.
 
saturnz said:
Splinter accused me of being a liar, but you are interested in whether I was insured or not.

So how are you going to believe my answers if I am a liar? should that not be resolved first?
Click to expand...

Your squirming says it all.

You have been asked to provide proof.

Your answer? "If I provide proof, no-one will believe me..."

The most mind-boggling thing since...I dunno. Someone help me out here.
 
saturnz said:
one would think that logic dictates that if my "pos turbo superboss" was written off and the insurance took ownership of the car, that I would be entitled to a replacement "pos turbo superboss" in similar condition
Click to expand...

Nope. stated before why.
 
Splinter said:
Your squirming says it all.

You have been asked to provide proof.

Your answer? "If I provide proof, no-one will believe me..."

The most mind-boggling thing since...I dunno. Someone help me out here.
Click to expand...

Classical saturnzism...

It’s like when I tried to make simulations about saving on shares and I couldn’t get base assumptions, and when I was making them, mines were wrong.

He’ll find every possible way in the book to NOT reach a conclusion.
 
f2wohf said:
Classical saturnzism...

It’s like when I tried to make simulations about saving on shares and I couldn’t get base assumptions, and when I was making them, mines were wrong.

He’ll find every possible way in the book to NOT reach a conclusion.
Click to expand...

yeah well. I have taken him up on his 10k bet (assuming he will actually have the balls to specify the actual conditions, and his lawyer contacting me).
 
Splinter said:
Your squirming says it all.

You have been asked to provide proof.

Your answer? "If I provide proof, no-one will believe me..."

The most mind-boggling thing since...I dunno. Someone help me out here.
Click to expand...

Let's get the lawyers to sort it out.

Remember it's 84k in damages and you are saying it's untrue.

So I must just prove I received 84k in damages?
 
saturnz said:
Let's get the lawyers to sort it out.

Remember it's 84k in damages and you are saying it's untrue.

So I must just prove I received 84k in damages?
Click to expand...

Umm - no. This alone shows you were lying all the time. Like I said, you have gone from a sale, to an insurance claim, to "damages".

And you also said you received more than R95000 for your car. Not a claim. I can actually quite imagine you claiming some sort of insurance, what with your, umm, ability to slip and slide.
 
saturnz said:
what are you talking about? you do know what happened right?

I had a claim against a person who happened to be insured, whether I was insured or not is irrelevant

you do know how this works right?
Click to expand...

Ah. This is the be all and end all. A bit of an insurance claim against a 3rd party. I have my thoughts on the legitimacy of it; but I will reserve my R10k bet with SatZ about the actual value of his car.
 
Splinter said:
Umm - no. This alone shows you were lying all the time. Like I said, you have gone from a sale, to an insurance claim, to "damages".

And you also said you received more than R95000 for your car. Not a claim. I can actually quite imagine you claiming some sort of insurance, what with your, umm, ability to slip and slide.
Click to expand...


what I received in total for it is clearly more than what I advertised it for, I at no point said I sold the car for more than what I advertised it for, and the damages claim I said way before you implied I sold it for more than what I advertised it for- see how you make up things?

when did I mention I had an RAF claim, how is it possible for me to make a claim from the RAF for a damaged vehicle? this is something you made up all on your own.

I see now you saying the bet is now on the value of the car, which value would that be, replacement value, book value, market value, trade value?

I'm simply going with the 84k on this, its a simple yes or if the payout is true of false.

we need to agree on what I need to prove, but since that is not going to happen I'm not going to waste other people's time
 
Last edited:
saturnz said:
one would think that logic dictates that if my "pos turbo superboss" was written off and the insurance took ownership of the car, that I would be entitled to a replacement "pos turbo superboss" in similar condition
Click to expand...

No... logic and law dictates that you would be paid out roughly book value... less condition issues etc etc...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X