Contract Law and procedure.

[ecalid]

Hello, some may already notice that I have an existing thread relating to a court case that I am going through which can be found here: http://legalbeagles.info/forums/show...s-ecalid/page3

The creditor complied with my CCA request within 10 days of submitting my defense.

The claim was since stayed as the solicitor had not proceeded (I know, right?) but the solicitor has seemingly complied with my CPR request and stated that their client wishes to proceed almost 2 months after submitting my defense.


However in light of noticing something in my CCA agreement I wanted to make a separate thread to hopefully attract a diverse knowledge base.

So the creditor and solicitor have provided me with a credit agreement that seems to be all in order.

Except...

Under the involved parties of the contract it reads.

CashEuroNet, Quick Quid ("Creditor")

and

My Name, My address ("You")

However, my address is incomplete and only mentions the street name and postcode, no house number.

Now this may seem like a minor detail and considering that under the signature box it reads my full name and address with house number, even the time of day it was alleged to have been signed by myself.

My argument is, surely a contract is void if that contract cannot pertain to the debtor, having been unable to verify the credit score and home address through electoral role, therefore not actually being able to open the account in the first place.

For me to have to signed the agreement, the application must have already been accepted with the information submitted to be able to get to the signature and terms & conditions stage. Doing this in any other order is surely a breach of contract law formation.

It is my belief that creditors can enforce the debt by using reconstituted agreements, however because HHJ Waksman in Carey v HSBC they have to provide a copy of the "Executed" agreement.

If I am correct then the agreement they have provided could not have been executed in the first place, surely the contract would be void, not to mention an obvious non-compliance of a CCA request.

Any thoughts?

Thanks in advance.

[ecalid]

Re: Contract Law and procedure.

Hi, the money was borrowed legitimately.

I don't dispute owing the debt, I have tried multiple times to address particular events in my life that circumstanced loss of job etc but as you can surmise they weren't interested.

The claim amount is a result of interest and fee's being piled on. £1000.28 for a £450 debt.

[nemesis45]

Re: Contract Law and procedure.

Hello, some may already notice that I have an existing thread relating to a court case that I am going through which can be found here: http://legalbeagles.info/forums/show...s-ecalid/page3

The creditor complied with my CCA request within 10 days of submitting my defense.

The claim was since stayed as the solicitor had not proceeded (I know, right?) but the solicitor has seemingly complied with my CPR request and stated that their client wishes to proceed almost 2 months after submitting my defense.


However in light of noticing something in my CCA agreement I wanted to make a separate thread to hopefully attract a diverse knowledge base.

So the creditor and solicitor have provided me with a credit agreement that seems to be all in order.

Except...

Under the involved parties of the contract it reads.

CashEuroNet, Quick Quid ("Creditor")


and

My Name, My address ("You")

However, my address is incomplete and only mentions the street name and postcode, no house number.

Now this may seem like a minor detail and considering that under the signature box it reads my full name and address with house number, even the time of day it was alleged to have been signed by myself.

My argument is, surely a contract is void if that contract cannot pertain to the debtor, having been unable to verify the credit score and home address through electoral role, therefore not actually being able to open the account in the first place.

For me to have to signed the agreement, the application must have already been accepted with the information submitted to be able to get to the signature and terms & conditions stage. Doing this in any other order is surely a breach of contract law formation.

It is my belief that creditors can enforce the debt by using reconstituted agreements, however because HHJ Waksman in Carey v HSBC they have to provide a copy of the "Executed" agreement.

If I am correct then the agreement they have provided could not have been executed in the first place, surely the contract would be void, not to mention an obvious non-compliance of a CCA request.

Any thoughts?

Thanks in advance.

Tick Box Signature? Please post a suitably sanitized copy of the " agreement " you have received are all the terms and conditions present.

nem

[ecalid]

Re: Contract Law and procedure.

Tick Box Signature? Please post a suitably sanitized copy of the " agreement " you have received are all the terms and conditions present.

nem

Yes it was.

Yes they are. I think....

Here you go:

http://legalbeagles.info/forums/atta...2&d=1506023159
(this is pasted from my original thread where my name and any particulars have been omitted, this will not give reference to the point I am trying to address)

[nemesis45]

Re: Contract Law and procedure.

Yes it was.

Yes they are. I think....

Here you go:

http://legalbeagles.info/forums/atta...2&d=1506023159
(this is pasted from my original thread where my name and any particulars have been omitted, this will not give reference to the point I am trying to address)

If your name and address is shown in the signature box then I don't thing the " omission " I n the contract header will be of significance.

nem

[ecalid]

Re: Contract Law and procedure.

I agree with you but something about it just bothers me.

I was under the impression that a legal binding contract must be absolute and outline directly both parties involved respective to eachother, they have provided a complete and full address for themselves but not for me, surely it raises questions into how they managed to formulate the contract in the first place without the necessary information required to offer the agreement.

I could for example be putting a signature to a contract that belongs to somebody else of the same name and street as me, however unlikely, this cannot be ruled out, thus opening up speculation into the integrity of the contract.

I'm not trying to question your knowledge by the way, I am just trying to be contentious on purpose for the avoidance of doubt of this subject.

[ecalid]

Re: Contract Law and procedure.

I have written a response to the CPR documents that the solicitor has reently sent me.

I'm just woundering if this would have any legal standing???

Baring in mind it's only a draft.
To whom it may concern.

I write in regards to the above claim number and in response to your recent correspondence dated xxxxx.

You have not complied with my CPR 32.14 request dated xxxxxxx.

I must inform you that the burden of proof to identify the debtor lies with the claimant and you are unable to enforce this debt as you and your client have not complied with the legal obligations of s78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

The person the creditor alleges to be the debtor cannot be indebted to them for the amount you claim as the agreement provided fails to provide a definitive and clear address of residence to successfully identify the debtor.

It is common practice in contract law that all parties must be outlined clearly and definitively in order for the agreement to be water tight and for the avoidance of doubt.

For this agreement to have been formulated, an offer must have been made upon meeting the satisfactory criteria the creditor required pursuant to the initial application which would require a Full name, Date of Birth and Full Address (including house number). Enabling me to have accepted the agreement and signed the document that you rely on in your statement of case

It is construed that the address at where your client alleges the debtor to reside was only established upon signing the agreement AFTER the unsigned agreement was presented to the borrower, which I am confident you will agree is non confirmative to the standard practice of contract formulation. Opening up speculation into the authenticity of the agreement as the liabilities of the debtor and necessary due diligence of the agreement could not have been assessed and executed by both parties in proper sequence as suggested, therefore compromising the integrity of the agreement by virtue of HHJ Waksman in Carey vs HSBC:

· (1) A creditor can satisfy its duty under s78 by providing a reconstituted version of the executed agreement which may be from sources other than the actual signed agreement itself;


· (2) The s78 copy must contain the name and address of the debtor as it was at the time of the execution of the agreement. But the creditor can provide the name and address from whatever source it has of those details. It does not have to take them from the executed agreement itself;

The law stipulates that the agreement relied on in your statement of case must contain the exacting details as it did at time the agreement was executed. With the agreement that you have provided, this would suggest that before the agreement was even signed by the debtor it was already void. The borrower could not be successfully identified upon conception of the document thus the agreement was not legally binding and bespoke to the signee.

Baring in mind that the claim is addressed different to that mentioned in the agreement, opens up further speculation into the authenticity of the document.

Baring in mind that you have provided this documentation after your client has allowed the claim to become stayed, exhibiting an abuse of process as well as the inability to proceed with the claim unencumbered.

I can only surmise that the legal instrumentation you rely on was not available at conception of the claim. I remind you of rule 3.5 of the Practice Direction 16 under Statement of Case:
· Attention is drawn to rule 32.14 which sets out the consequences of verifying a statement of case containing a false statement without an honest belief in its truth.


I will be bringing all of these matters to the attention of the court and any further action prior to the compliance of s78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 will be seen as vexatious warranting an immediate application to strike out the claim by exhibiting the abuse of process endorsed by your yourselves to a judge and will maintain to defend this case as demonstrated.