The high court told the company linked to Michelle Mone to pay up over the supply of defective gowns, but there appears no clear route to reclaim the funds
Legally you have to be able to distinguish what they did from a company whose customer told them that some merchandise was defective, and then the company simply carried on operating as normal while looking into it. I think it would be unusual to hold that money aside unless the company thought that the complaint was likely accurate, and certainly it’s not legally required, because the company will have bills to pay.
So if it’s not unreasonable for a company to carry on spending money while there’s a question over potentially having to repay something, we can’t reasonably take the position that, because this company carried on spending money, that must be fraudulent.
The gowns were rejected on inspection in September 2020 at the NHS warehousing facilities in Daventry, Northamptonshire, because their labels were invalid, and also signalled that they had not been certified as sterile, a life-protecting requirement. Cockerill ordered that the £122m be repaid by 15 October.
Literally in the article of this thread dude. You seemingly want to shill for a shady company that shook down the government through their own connections, but reading the damn article is a stretch too far.
That quote does not say that the government immediately asked for the money to be paid back, so let’s cool it with the accusations, eh?
You didn’t actually reply to what I said. What evidence of fraud do you think exists? All you said was “they knowingly spent money that should have been returned”, but they didn’t have a legal finding that the money should be returned.
And also consider that if you jump to accusations of shilling as soon as there’s a slight difference of understanding plus any attempt to get you to see something from someone else’s perspective, you’ll live a very blinkered life.
Well, I hadn’t heard that, but suppose it’s true:
Legally you have to be able to distinguish what they did from a company whose customer told them that some merchandise was defective, and then the company simply carried on operating as normal while looking into it. I think it would be unusual to hold that money aside unless the company thought that the complaint was likely accurate, and certainly it’s not legally required, because the company will have bills to pay.
So if it’s not unreasonable for a company to carry on spending money while there’s a question over potentially having to repay something, we can’t reasonably take the position that, because this company carried on spending money, that must be fraudulent.
Literally in the article of this thread dude. You seemingly want to shill for a shady company that shook down the government through their own connections, but reading the damn article is a stretch too far.
That quote does not say that the government immediately asked for the money to be paid back, so let’s cool it with the accusations, eh?
You didn’t actually reply to what I said. What evidence of fraud do you think exists? All you said was “they knowingly spent money that should have been returned”, but they didn’t have a legal finding that the money should be returned.
And also consider that if you jump to accusations of shilling as soon as there’s a slight difference of understanding plus any attempt to get you to see something from someone else’s perspective, you’ll live a very blinkered life.