Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

[buster1967]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Can someone please clarify,
if a bad dn means no enforcement action can be taken until rectified, then how does that affect the Brandon case,

If they issued a bad dn, how did the claimant win, as he shouldnt have been able to start enforcement action on the back on a bad DN,

Surely if thats the case Brandon should win his appeal,? obviously theres nothing stopping them re issuing a new compliant DN, and re issuing new proceddings, but how can Brandon loose this appeal if their actions were unlawfull in the first place,?

Doubly confused now.

B x

[jumper999]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

I can say that some of the comments made by the judge will be very useful in my case to say the least. He has given me a lot to think about and add more weight to my arguments that I have already forwarded in my defence. Especially about the unfairness parts and paragraph 83 is an excellent piece of advice.

Thank you again PT

[New_Age_Biker]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

It would be safe i think - in response to a LBA to inform the creditor that he has not complied , that his DN and TN are unlawful (they NEVER take any notice of you anyway) and then let him commence proceedings-based on the invalid DN - and then submit a defence and apply for the strike out

at the very least i believe it will discourage the creditor from starting over again unless he is really determined

I suggest it may be better to state you have not received a valid Dn or Tn, this alerts the creditor in a softer manner hopefully he then continues with is action. Let us not forget he can reissue very easily

[fallenangel]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Thanks PT

[jumper999]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

PT I hope you have booked some time off as you have a house full of LB's tonight and instead of counting sheep when you go to sleep you'll be giving out explanations of this judgment LO,

Hope your prepared LOL, well done BTW

[pt2537]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

perhaps someone should send that judgement to the brandon judge?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------



the judge was saying that a bad dn can be put right be serving a good one (provided that the defendant is not prejudiced in the meantime)

the creditor here did not correct the bad dn and carried on anyway


the judge also "punished " the creditor in costs for waiting until half way through the case before he complied with s78 and more or less said that this should be complied with before proceedings start

(correct me if i am wrong)

sorry you are wrong

The Judge did not punish them in costs for non compliance,as there is a case authority being Teasdale that says he couldnt

but he was very critical of their conduct

[Angry Cat]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Good, im glad,

I hope that it helps many, who have suffered at the hands of various debt collectors, as frankly Link have only themselves to blame here with that judgment

They were unreasonable and pushed our client into a corner.

Had they been reasonable then we would have met them at the table but they chose to close all the doors, so i say tough luck on them

Absolutely, Brilliant!!!

And yes, the judgement will most certainly help many consumers.

About time that Link Financial took a whipping, not fogetting the Delaware Cowboys, of course...:beagle:

PT, 'Link'do not understand the word: reasonable.

[pt2537]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

perhaps someone should send that judgement to the brandon judge?

Worth noting

Brandons judge was a Crown Judge

Harrisons Judge was a specialist Mercantile court judge who has background in CCA cases, such as conister v hardman if my memory serves me correct

[diddydicky]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

perhaps someone should send that judgement to the brandon judge?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Hi guys, first post here,so please be gentle with me :tung:

Im confused as to the default notice sections ,
If the judge is saying its bad if not in the correct prescribed format,and therefore not valid anyway
why does he go on about service etc, cause if its bad and it can be remedied by issuing a new one, then surely its of no relevance anyway?
why bother with going through proving how it was sent etc etc if its of no importance anyway?
he also touches on when it was assigned, but unclear of date, why was the date unclear, was that a service issue too

Im interested in what happens if a credotor terminates within the 14 day stat notice, does that alter things?

Will brandon case clear this default senario up once and for all?

B x

the judge was saying that a bad dn can be put right be serving a good one (provided that the defendant is not prejudiced in the meantime)

the creditor here did not correct the bad dn and carried on anyway


the judge also "punished " the creditor in costs for waiting until half way through the case before he complied with s78 and more or less said that this should be complied with before proceedings start

a creditor who terminates within 14 days of the service of the DN clearly cannot then terminate lawfully

(correct me if i am wrong)


the clear strategy now (apart from keeping envelopes) would seem to be to say NOWT about the defective DN but simply ACT in accordance with having accepted an unlawful repudiation (yes yes i know the arguments)

when he has placed adverse info on your CRA file s - make several applications for credit elsewhere and keep a record of the responses

It would be safe i think - in response to a LBA to inform the creditor that he has not complied , that his DN and TN are unlawful (they NEVER take any notice of you anyway) and then let him commence proceedings-based on the invalid DN - and then submit a defence and apply for the strike out

at the very least i believe it will discourage the creditor from starting over again unless he is really determined

[buster1967]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Hi guys, first post here,so please be gentle with me :tung:

Im confused as to the default notice sections ,
If the judge is saying its bad if not in the correct prescribed format,and therefore not valid anyway
why does he go on about service etc, cause if its bad and it can be remedied by issuing a new one, then surely its of no real importance anyway?
why bother with going through proving how it was sent etc etc if its of no real importance anyway?
he also touches on when the debt was assigned, but unclear of date, why was the date unclear, was that a service issue ?

Im interested in what happens if a creditor terminates within the 14 day stat notice, does that alter things?

Will brandon case clear this default senario up once and for all?

B x

[Angry Cat]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

DN dated 3 Oct 08.........arrived on 9 Oct 08..........remedy date 21 Oct 08.........but should have been dated 23 Oct 08?

Basically they only gave 12 days for remedy therefore that made the DN bad?

Am I catching on here?

Deleted; error

[jumper999]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Oh at last I'm finally getting it thanks PT,

So that means my DN dated 19 May 2009..........remedy date 2 June 2009 ...........giving me 14 days to remedy. Mind you I do not have the envelope to prove when it arrived whether it was 1st or 2nd class.

I know there was a Bank Holiday that fell between these two dates.......but don't know if that applies. Still I was given the 14 days allowed to remedy.

That means my DN is not bad? any help with this please?

[pt2537]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

DN dated 3 Oct 08.........arrived on 9 Oct 08..........remedy date 21 Oct 08.........but should have been dated 23 Oct 08?

Basically they only gave 12 days for remedy therefore that made the DN bad?

Am I catching on here?

i think you may well be

[jumper999]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

DN dated 3 Oct 08.........arrived on 9 Oct 08..........remedy date 21 Oct 08.........but should have been dated 23 Oct 08?

Basically they only gave 12 days for remedy therefore that made the DN bad?

Am I catching on here?

[pt2537]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

That judgement really does bring a great big smile to my face
Thank you ,PT!

ALWAYS KEEP COPIES OF ALL PAPERWORK; ENVELOPES INCLUDED [Emphasis Added]

Good, im glad,

I hope that it helps many, who have suffered at the hands of various debt collectors, as frankly Link have only themselves to blame here with that judgment

They were unreasonable and pushed our client into a corner.

Had they been reasonable then we would have met them at the table but they chose to close all the doors, so i say tough luck on them