由此 - 10 - A B C stopped time running in respect of the solicitation, as Mr Poon seemed to suggest. As the Magistrate stated: E F H B C “the law of contract had no place … on decided and longstanding authority, in matters of the provision of lewd and immoral acts and the attempt to try to show that there was a decided agreement the day before the parties met was, [in his judgment], futile. The fact that the witness may have known fully the nature and scope of the services the appellant offered and the cost of those services was no bar to the ability of the appellant to solicit when she and PW2 met.” D G A D E F G The Magistrate had accepted as truthful and accurate the conversation which PW2 said he had with the Appellant. That being so, it was for the H Magistrate to decide whether what was said amounted to soliciting. He I I found little difficulty in doing so. J J 25. In that conversation the Appellant had either renewed or K K continued, (it makes no difference which it was), her solicitation of PW2 L M by offering to provide sexual services. What, if anything, the parties had agreed the day before was no bar to the Appellant further soliciting PW2 L M by offering her services, explaining those services, or advising her charges. N O Nor did the fact they had arranged to meet prevent the Appellant soliciting PW2 at the place arranged for the meeting. The Appellant when asked had N O agreed that either party could cancel or change that initial arrangement. P P Q 26. The Appellant advertised sexual services on the Internet and Q had discussions and negotiations with potential customers on-line, by MSN R S messages, or by telephone. However she was not charged with soliciting on the Internet or telephonically but with soliciting at the undoubtedly public venue of an MTR station exit. T R S Whether it was a renewal or continuation of her soliciting on the previous day was irrelevant. T U U V V