- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
- Posts
Hi Mike!
In the case of Thompson V LMS Railway, one of the fact is that the claimant was illiterate and the decision was the condition was adequately communicated.
– I am a bit confuse here. If the claimant was illiterate, it’s obvious that whatever was displayed on the platform(company’s timetable), the claimant would be unable to read. Therefore the communication could not take place.
-This is my understanding of the case. Could you tell me where I am getting things wrong?
Thanks. And by the way, the incident of your “lost sweater” was very interesting. This was the best part of the lecture 🙂
Which way was the communication going?
Her condition was being communicated to the ticket office employee … it wasn’t coming from the railway company to Mrs Thompson
That lost sweater! If you’ve ever been to Uzbekistan you could so easily see how that event transpired
I do seem to have some interesting times with sweaters
OK?
- The topic ‘contract’ is closed to new replies.