Tweet
Study on the implementation of Recommendation 97/489/EC concerning
transactions carried out by electronic payment instruments and in
particular the relationship between holder and issuer
Also
lol
Might be useful to someone.
transactions carried out by electronic payment instruments and in
particular the relationship between holder and issuer
In John Lewis Plc v Siwek (1998), JL raised an action against S seeking payment of a debt
which S had run up on charge cards issued by JL. S admitted that he had been issued with the
cards and had used them to purchase goods that he had not paid for. S argued that the
agreement had been vitiated by JL instructing sheriff officers to visit him and demand
payment before any default notice had been issued in terms of the Consumer Credit Act 1974
s.87(1). The sheriff rejected S's argument and granted decree de plano. S appealed and, on
1 Part of the National Federation of Consumer Groups
Study on the implementation of Recommendation 97/489/EC 20
appeal, argued that as JL had not been able to produce a copy of the credit agreement they
were not entitled to claim interest.
Held, refusing the appeal, that (1) S had admitted that an agreement had been entered into and
that he had used the charge cards to purchase goods. It was not necessary for JL to produce a
copy of the agreement;
(2) S's averments of threats and demands by the sheriff officers were lacking in specification
and did not give proper notice of his case. In any event such harassment would not have the effect of
relieving S from his obligation to pay JL, and (3) JL had no notice of S's submissions regarding
interest and no opportunity to investigate the matter. S would not be allowed to advance that
part of his case.
which S had run up on charge cards issued by JL. S admitted that he had been issued with the
cards and had used them to purchase goods that he had not paid for. S argued that the
agreement had been vitiated by JL instructing sheriff officers to visit him and demand
payment before any default notice had been issued in terms of the Consumer Credit Act 1974
s.87(1). The sheriff rejected S's argument and granted decree de plano. S appealed and, on
1 Part of the National Federation of Consumer Groups
Study on the implementation of Recommendation 97/489/EC 20
appeal, argued that as JL had not been able to produce a copy of the credit agreement they
were not entitled to claim interest.
Held, refusing the appeal, that (1) S had admitted that an agreement had been entered into and
that he had used the charge cards to purchase goods. It was not necessary for JL to produce a
copy of the agreement;
(2) S's averments of threats and demands by the sheriff officers were lacking in specification
and did not give proper notice of his case. In any event such harassment would not have the effect of
relieving S from his obligation to pay JL, and (3) JL had no notice of S's submissions regarding
interest and no opportunity to investigate the matter. S would not be allowed to advance that
part of his case.
APPENDIX
A Sample EPI Contract: American Express Blue Card.
A Sample EPI Contract: American Express Blue Card.
Might be useful to someone.
