Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Yes I agree with you broad approach, the problem is that lawers have agued over what "should" means when in the context its perfectly obvious.

I do think we need to be very precise and try to understand the DN and termination issue - I note that there are several unanswered questions including my own. This probably means that we wont know until a clever DCA twists common English in court.

If a clever solicitor sees words like "often" you can bet they will be all over it like a pox rash seeking to make it advantageous to them.

A return to the basics is required, regrettably that needs to come from the judiciary, and I cant see that happening.

We therefore must do what we can here, if others will let us.

Vdr

Hi

Yes "should" as reffered to in the CPR relating to the production of documents, i presumer that is what you mean, dont think it has been argued over though, could be wrong.

AS far the the word often is concerned who would argue ove it? I suppose it would have to be the debtor when this case was used as a precedent by the
other side,"but HJH Chambers only said often sir not always" could work.

Doesnt seem likely though does it?

peter

[volvodriver]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Hi Guys,

"IMVHO if the standard of debate and comprehension of written English seen on this thread and others here and on CAG is what LIPs take into a courtroom, there is no wonder so many lose."

This I wholeheartedly agree with Volvodriver. Unfortunately this is making life much more difficult for the professionals who are prepared to help us mere mortals as well as the cards are slowly stacking against us.

On the defective DN issue, I cannot see any justice whatsoever in allowing a creditor to keep on going back to court over and over again until he gets the decision he wants ON THE SAME FACTS other than a piece of paper which HE should have issued correctly in the very first place as is required of him in Statute Law.

I would have thought that res judicata would have prevented this. Only murder allows for for the double jeopardy rule to be relaxed elsewhere and the burden of proof here is "beyond reasonable doubt" The very same posters have argued in other places that proof required in these cases is only on balance of probabilities i.e. 51%. An inaccurate, defective DN is proof absolute that the creditor has "screwed up" and has breached the Statutes governing its behaviour.

Perhaps we should also be looking at principles and fundamentals when formulating argument rather dissecting an individual word and the nuances it contains.

regards
garlok






Read more at: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission - Page 16 - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

Yes I agree with you broad approach, the problem is that lawers have agued over what "should" means when in the context its perfectly obvious.

I do think we need to be very precise and try to understand the DN and termination issue - I note that there are several unanswered questions including my own. This probably means that we wont know until a clever DCA twists common English in court.

If a clever solicitor sees words like "often" you can bet they will be all over it like a pox rash seeking to make it advantageous to them.

A return to the basics is required, regrettably that needs to come from the judiciary, and I cant see that happening.

We therefore must do what we can here, if others will let us.

Vdr

[Garlok]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Hi Guys,

"IMVHO if the standard of debate and comprehension of written English seen on this thread and others here and on CAG is what LIPs take into a courtroom, there is no wonder so many lose."

This I wholeheartedly agree with Volvodriver. Unfortunately this is making life much more difficult for the professionals who are prepared to help us mere mortals as well as the cards are slowly stacking against us.

On the defective DN issue, I cannot see any justice whatsoever in allowing a creditor to keep on going back to court over and over again until he gets the decision he wants ON THE SAME FACTS other than a piece of paper which HE should have issued correctly in the very first place as is required of him in Statute Law.

I would have thought that res judicata would have prevented this. Only murder allows for for the double jeopardy rule to be relaxed elsewhere and the burden of proof here is "beyond reasonable doubt" The very same posters have argued in other places that proof required in these cases is only on balance of probabilities i.e. 51%. An inaccurate, defective DN is proof absolute that the creditor has "screwed up" and has breached the Statutes governing its behaviour.

Perhaps we should also be looking at principles and fundamentals when formulating argument rather dissecting an individual word and the nuances it contains.

regards
garlok




Read more at: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission - Page 16 - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

[cymruambyth]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Ohay, I know the termination question is alive and kicking, but how can a DN that is defective be reissued when the account has been assigned to a DCA? Does the DCA have to send a valid DN? What happens about an account that has been closed (for tax purposes) following the defctive DN and then sold?

[Amethyst]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Hmmmm, thinking on Volvo's point. If the court ordered a valid DN be issued and it wasn't then the claim should be struck out for not complying with judges orders (unless v good explanation)...however if the court simply stayed the case to allow the parties to get their 'ducks in a row' (who bought that saying over here anyway !) and left them at liberty to apply to pick things up and amend POCs then I don't think it could be construed as an abuse of process if they didn't issue a valid DN. However a second invalid DN is unlikely to attract similar leniancy from the judge and it is likely to be struck for having no prospect of success, but statute wise I think they could continue reissuing until they got it right but they couldnt ever terminate and the debtor would have to not be prejudiced by their crapness (unlikely I think) for them to continue indefinately and still succeed in court.

The Harrison judgment does show it is an idea, even if just to be on the right side of the judge in court, to make what payments you can even if just token. I do though understand some people for whatever reason prefer to stop and force court action for enforcement to enable a payment plan to be set and terms for interest etc to be set in stone.

(VD I think it wasn't clear that you agreed that a DN be reissued and just wondered on the issue of second and third and fourth faulty DNs being reissued till they got it right (assuming I have read you correctly that is lol) )I think the truth of the matter is we don't know - it hasn't been tested in court as far as I know but we do know that cpr and case law shows non compliance with Judges orders for entering documentation can be cause for a strike)

[volvodriver]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

And will you lot stop bickering it makes it very hard to follow the actual dicsussion on the subject.

Ame

I hope I'm not included amongst the bickerers.

I made it very clear that I dont know, very clear that I have no legal knowledge but that I genuinely wanted to understand.

I also like people to say what they mean, and mean what they say.

IMVHO if the standard of debate and comprehension of written English seen on this thread and others here and on CAG is what LIPs take into a courtroom, there is no wonder so many lose.

Perhaps in some small way I could help if folk would read more carefully and stop shooting from the hip.

A bit of precision goes a long, long way.

Vdr

ps

I'm still awaiting the answer to the 64000$ question I asked a while ago. I suppose (dangerous) that there being no answer means there is not one.

Vdr

[New_Age_Biker]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Any answers on what does make abuse of process?

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Well PT's reputation does proceed him, he ignites a tiny spark and well the forest sets ablaze.

Great judgment, great result, and best of all a great guy.......that's our PT LOL.

Niddy's English lesson - it should be "reputation precedes"

pmsl

[jumper999]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Well PT's reputation does proceed him, he ignites a tiny spark and well the forest sets ablaze.

Great judgment, great result, and best of all a great guy.......that's our PT LOL.

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

lol not your fault jumper xx

For ref though it is an idea to reference stuff copied from elsewhere (just a link / posters name etc will do fine) xx

"Idiot from the orange place" - thats about right! :beagle:

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Blimey this thread is turning in to a domestic, sorry for any confusion guys

Domestic? What's one of those..... :tinysmile_aha_t:

This thread is intriguing, although I can understand why some posters are getting frustrated! I guess by the end of it we'll know every scenario possible, even without case law to refer to! We could call it LB Law....?

[Amethyst]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

lol not your fault jumper xx

For ref though it is an idea to reference stuff copied from elsewhere (just a link / posters name etc will do fine) xx

[jumper999]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Blimey this thread is turning in to a domestic, sorry for any confusion guys

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Flippin Amy again she is so quick

This was the response to my post if you remember you told me to see Amys post here it is above.

Peter

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

I never implied anything of the sort.

If you actually care to look, I did not even respond to your post.

Perhaps you'd care to apologise.

Vdr

You responded to Jumper, implying that the post she quoted suggested that the claimant was the DCA, which is why I responded because I wrote what jumper quoted!

I'm sorry, i'm sorry i'm able to understand quotes and follow a discussion in hand. :tinysmile_kiss_t4: