Wilson V Hurstanger

[insomniac]

I have been reading about the "Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd
Court of Appeal 4 April 2007" case with some interest and I dont know if anyone else has read it at all?

* * *

The case centered around a loan arranged by a broker who was paid mostly by the borrowers but also recieved a smaller commision from the loan company (Hurstanger).

Wilson argued that this secret commision was wrong and the appeal court agreed that it should be repaid with interest because it was in effect a bribe. An option also open to the court was to rescind the loan but opted not to do so, as the borrowers did know about the commission's existance (but not its value) and had signed prior to the loan acknowledging the possibility of such a commision.

Or at least thats my understanding of it!

* * *

Has anyone else read about this?

Plus does anyone understand what the rescission could have done to the contract had it been applied- ie is it unenforcable or voidable?

Does the commission (both existane and value) have to be declared on the agreemnent thus its ommision make it badly executed?



Thanks, and any other thoughts or musings most welcome......

[Curlyben]

Re: Wilson V Hurstanger

There's quite a bit of Wilson's legal actions to read up on.

Have fun

[insomniac]

Re: Wilson V Hurstanger

There's quite a bit of Wilson's legal actions to read up on.

Have fun

On re-reading this case something has struck me.......

Had wilson not given any kind acknowledgement of the possibility of a commision from lender to broker the court would have not only refunded this commision but rescinded the loan,as was an option.

My understanding of the rescission concept (I think also called voidable) is everthing returns to as was before the loan. All the borrower is obliged to repay is the amount of credit but not the interest but the question is WHEN?

If wilson was already behind on payments what would have happened if the court gave the decision thier way and rescinded the loan there and then?