He failed to refute what I stated and so do you. Pots and kettles aren't discussion material.
But your compounded insults say more for your frustrating failings ...
Oracle wrote:bsharpish ... you are far too slow and really need to read the exchanges before putting your foot (or overlong ears) in your mouth.
It's evidence to show that even the British lawyers who lay down their life and "personal interests" can find it a little hard to track down all encumbrances. However, I know from experience, the more you pay a lawyer, the more he uncovers!
But, his Conduct may have been impeccable ...
bsharpish wrote:Oracle wrote:bsharpish ... you are far too slow and really need to read the exchanges before putting your foot (or overlong ears) in your mouth.
It's evidence to show that even the British lawyers who lay down their life and "personal interests" can find it a little hard to track down all encumbrances. However, I know from experience, the more you pay a lawyer, the more he uncovers!
But, his Conduct may have been impeccable ...
How tracking down some some obscure, 100's of year old encumbrance is relevant to the failure of a lawyer( through ineptitude or criminal intent) to undertake the most basic of tasks- I.E. find out if the property being bought by his client actually belongs to the seller- is beyond me.
Once again you are deflecting the issue and putting up a smokescreen
Perhaps , as your name suggests, you have been squatting over a hole (and sniffing the gas that emerges from it) then hey presto !!! out comes your nebulous, incoherent pythian twaddle
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests