Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

[mystery1]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

HI
I think a lot of the problem is that some don’t seem able to understand the concept that the enforcement cannot happen if the default notice is defective.
We must remember that the act says that the creditor is not entitled to so therefore he cannot, the fact that he takes steps to do what he is not entitled to is not important, in law he cannot.
I always get the mick taken for using simplistic examples so here is your chance to have a go, but consider this.
I have a lady friend who married a man who was married before.
She accepted his termination, oops sorry I meant proposal.
The got the licence, they got the invitations, she walked down the aisle.
That night on their honeymoon he passed away from over exertion.
When the will was read his new wife got nothing at all from his estate, nope his first wife got it all.
You see he was not entitled to marry so even though he went through all the actions in law none of it happened.
OK
So now chip away
Peter

In the same scenario if he hadn't died but his 1st wife found out and it went to court he would be punished. The only reason that he wasn't punished was death.

M1

[volvodriver]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

So now we have financial bigamy to confuse us even more.

That's about as clear as the mud on Weston-Super-Mare beach at midnight when there's no moon or cloud.

[ed.]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Or of course, we all we stop looking at typos as a means of getting out of our liabilities?

I said before 'where is the unfairness etc', those who (they know) unfortunately thought I was attacking them replied with brilliant answers, and hopefully they realise I meant substance, proveable, actions, behaviour etc because clearly a failure on the creditors part that leads to a legal withholding of payment that a customer can use to limit interest on other debts, or put in a savings account that attracts interest clearly cannot be unfair in the grand scheme of things.

We have to move away from the 'they get away with everything angle'. We have to move away from the 'they got the date wrong' as an excuse to wipe out debt and so on. oo many chancers, too many who can pay who jump on technicalities mean ultimately those who really need this protection are viewed the same.

Don't act like like scum in my opinion. Bennion said himself he never wanted, expected or desired his protection to be used by those who cared about making money for themselves at the expense of those he wanted to protect.

That is the line.

Typo errors, defective DN's, a phonecall every week, a letter every fortnight blah blah blah......

Let's focus on those getting 8 calls a day, those getting 3 letters a day, those getting contradictory DN's on the same day and so on. Clear behaviour problems, clear pressure etc.

That's where I sit.

I don't mean to offend, I don't mean to upset, those with clear issues have S140. But I don't believe a typo should mean an entire agreement when you've had and spent the money should wipe that obligation out - unless you've already at least paid back the sum borrowed originally.

We have Woody, my own thoughts are a breach means you repay the principle at an affordable rate, not only arrears but I'm in a minority there. Sod it. lol

I know it's slightly different with CRF's, but that's a separate argument.

I keep saying...we want change in the financial world, the utility world etc I keep asking will it happen by us being as corrupt/chancery/and profit driven in effect as they are.

We stoop to their level, we demean ourselves.

So instead of looking for font colours, type face and whether correct words are bolded............................................ .................................................. .............................................would n't it actually serve a better purpose to lay out the unfairness such simple typos can do as opposed to relying simply on the typos?

I really hope people see where I'm coming from, look bigger, look wider - the arguments can be won. But to think a dodgy DN must mean they can't enforce the debt even if they get it right and it must mean they have bolloksed the agreement by one wrong mail shot previously seriously makes me wonder why I've spent 6 odd hours a day since 2007 trying to help people.

Ignore the paperwork unless clear prescribed are missing, LOOK at the behaviour. Find the unfairness, not the typo. When you do, most will win.

[Ihaterbs]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Or of course, we all we stop looking at typos as a means of getting out of our liabilities?

I said before 'where is the unfairness etc', those who (they know) unfortunately thought I was attacking them replied with brilliant answers, and hopefully they realise I meant substance, proveable, actions, behaviour etc because clearly a failure on the creditors part that leads to a legal withholding of payment that a customer can use to limit interest on other debts, or put in a savings account that attracts interest clearly cannot be unfair in the grand scheme of things.

We have to move away from the 'they get away with everything angle'. We have to move away from the 'they got the date wrong' as an excuse to wipe out debt and so on. oo many chancers, too many who can pay who jump on technicalities mean ultimately those who really need this protection are viewed the same.

Don't act like like scum in my opinion. Bennion said himself he never wanted, expected or desired his protection to be used by those who cared about making money for themselves at the expense of those he wanted to protect.

That is the line.

Typo errors, defective DN's, a phonecall every week, a letter every fortnight blah blah blah......

Let's focus on those getting 8 calls a day, those getting 3 letters a day, those getting contradictory DN's on the same day and so on. Clear behaviour problems, clear pressure etc.

That's where I sit.

I don't mean to offend, I don't mean to upset, those with clear issues have S140. But I don't believe a typo should mean an entire agreement when you've had and spent the money should wipe that obligation out - unless you've already at least paid back the sum borrowed originally.

We have Woody, my own thoughts are a breach means you repay the principle at an affordable rate, not only arrears but I'm in a minority there. Sod it. lol

I know it's slightly different with CRF's, but that's a separate argument.

I keep saying...we want change in the financial world, the utility world etc I keep asking will it happen by us being as corrupt/chancery/and profit driven in effect as they are.

We stoop to their level, we demean ourselves.

So instead of looking for font colours, type face and whether correct words are bolded............................................ .................................................. .............................................would n't it actually serve a better purpose to lay out the unfairness such simple typos can do as opposed to relying simply on the typos?

I really hope people see where I'm coming from, look bigger, look wider - the arguments can be won. But to think a dodgy DN must mean they can't enforce the debt even if they get it right and it must mean they have bolloksed the agreement by one wrong mail shot previously seriously makes me wonder why I've spent 6 odd hours a day since 2007 trying to help people.

Ignore the paperwork unless clear prescribed are missing, LOOK at the behaviour. Find the unfairness, not the typo. When you do, most will win.

Most people using consumer sites are in desperate need of help. Creditors are ignoring their requests to cease interest charges, penalty charges and/or refusing to accept token payments until an improved change in circumstances, often after divorce, bereavement, illness. I for one have been successful in having a DJ dismiss a creditors claim on technical breaches and have helped others do the same. The point is if a debtor who has been shafted by these scumbags can use any king of technical breach to distinguish a liability then who are we to judge after all they are operating within the law contrary to certain moneylenders and DCAs.

Keep up the fight.

[pt2537]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Most people using consumer sites are in desperate need of help. Creditors are ignoring their requests to cease interest charges, penalty charges and/or refusing to accept token payments until an improved change in circumstances, often after divorce, bereavement, illness. I for one have been successful in having a DJ dismiss a creditors claim on technical breaches and have helped others do the same. The point is if a debtor who has been shafted by these scumbags can use any king of technical breach to distinguish a liability then who are we to judge after all they are operating within the law contrary to certain moneylenders and DCAs.

Keep up the fight.

Yes, but we are seeing a trend of arguments being developed which take things that step too far.

The circumstances you refer to above will be brought into light with the High Court Judgment being handed down tomorrow.

But these repudiatory arguments which have , and seemingly keep failing, need to be put to bed

[volvodriver]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Or of course, we all we stop looking at typos as a means of getting out of our liabilities?

I said before 'where is the unfairness etc', those who (they know) unfortunately thought I was attacking them replied with brilliant answers, and hopefully they realise I meant substance, proveable, actions, behaviour etc because clearly a failure on the creditors part that leads to a legal withholding of payment that a customer can use to limit interest on other debts, or put in a savings account that attracts interest clearly cannot be unfair in the grand scheme of things.

We have to move away from the 'they get away with everything angle'. We have to move away from the 'they got the date wrong' as an excuse to wipe out debt and so on. oo many chancers, too many who can pay who jump on technicalities mean ultimately those who really need this protection are viewed the same.

Don't act like like scum in my opinion. Bennion said himself he never wanted, expected or desired his protection to be used by those who cared about making money for themselves at the expense of those he wanted to protect.

That is the line.

Typo errors, defective DN's, a phonecall every week, a letter every fortnight blah blah blah......

Let's focus on those getting 8 calls a day, those getting 3 letters a day, those getting contradictory DN's on the same day and so on. Clear behaviour problems, clear pressure etc.

That's where I sit.

I don't mean to offend, I don't mean to upset, those with clear issues have S140. But I don't believe a typo should mean an entire agreement when you've had and spent the money should wipe that obligation out - unless you've already at least paid back the sum borrowed originally.

We have Woody, my own thoughts are a breach means you repay the principle at an affordable rate, not only arrears but I'm in a minority there. Sod it. lol

I know it's slightly different with CRF's, but that's a separate argument.

I keep saying...we want change in the financial world, the utility world etc I keep asking will it happen by us being as corrupt/chancery/and profit driven in effect as they are.

We stoop to their level, we demean ourselves.

So instead of looking for font colours, type face and whether correct words are bolded............................................ .................................................. .............................................would n't it actually serve a better purpose to lay out the unfairness such simple typos can do as opposed to relying simply on the typos?

I really hope people see where I'm coming from, look bigger, look wider - the arguments can be won. But to think a dodgy DN must mean they can't enforce the debt even if they get it right and it must mean they have bolloksed the agreement by one wrong mail shot previously seriously makes me wonder why I've spent 6 odd hours a day since 2007 trying to help people.

Ignore the paperwork unless clear prescribed are missing, LOOK at the behaviour. Find the unfairness, not the typo. When you do, most will win.

So how do you answer the claim that creditors are looking for every argument, however twisted, to win in court?

That some DCA's are clearly acting outside of the law?

That the whole techicality issue is the fault of those institutions who were not competent, or who thought the law didbn't apply to them, or who couldn't be arsed to keep proper records - as required by law.

Every claim made by a bank or DCA should succeed because they had their house in order.

Its not the debtoras fault its the creditors, and if the law had been applied firmly, they would be properly writing off millions of debt because their business was not properly managed.

FFS stop blaming the debtors, and look at where the fault for all of this lies.

[basa48]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

But as Ihaterbs says, most people of these forums are desperate.

They haven't all spent like a WAG and then looked for a way to avoid paying it back. Most have been forced to borrow to stay afloat and then when disposable income is dropping the banks up the interest rates. OK most banks may set a reasonable repayment schedule if pushed but will insist the risk is covered by a CO. Thus they get a secured loan at unsecured rates.

Yeh - that's fair!!

[Ihaterbs]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Yes, but we are seeing a trend of arguments being developed which take things that step too far.

The circumstances you refer to above will be brought into light with the High Court Judgment being handed down tomorrow.

But these repudiatory arguments which have , and seemingly keep failing, need to be put to bed

Tomorrow! can't wait.

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

HI
I think a lot of the problem is that some don’t seem able to understand the concept that the enforcement cannot happen if the default notice is defective.
We must remember that the act says that the creditor is not entitled to so therefore he cannot, the fact that he takes steps to do what he is not entitled to is not important, in law he cannot.
I always get the mick taken for using simplistic examples so here is your chance to have a go, but consider this.
I have a lady friend who married a man who was married before.
She accepted his termination, oops sorry I meant proposal.
The got the licence, they got the invitations, she walked down the aisle.
That night on their honeymoon he passed away from over exertion.
When the will was read his new wife got nothing at all from his estate, nope his first wife got it all.
You see he was not entitled to marry so even though he went through all the actions in law none of it happened.
OK
So now chip away
Peter

Yes well the problem with this Peter is that, had the husband survived his honeymoon and using the current view on regulated contract termination, on being found out about his bygamy he could have merely divorced his first wife to enable him to marry his second, and would not be "sanctioned" for doing so.

He could then have gone on to over-exert himself, die, and leave all to his new wife.

I think your entertaining analogy merely shows how ludicrous this position is, even though it appears to be the adopted view of the legal community.

[diddydicky]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

i think most of us do understand "the concept",

what we DONT understand is that an act which is supposed to be for the PROTECTIOn of the consumer seems to allow the creditor to terminate an agreement- to give the impression to the debtor that it has been terminated properly and then months- often maybe a year later and AFTER the creditor has trashed the consumers credit files - realise- often not until trial- that in fact he mistakenly terminated.. and then seems able ad infinitem tocarry on re serving as many DN's until he happens to get one right

that the consumer has not been disadvantaged (not that this was a requirement in parliaments mind at the time of drafting the act) by the creditors actions is ludicrous.

[Guest]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Yes well the problem with this Peter is that, had the husband survived his honeymoon and using the current view on regulated contract termination, on being found out about his bygamy he could have merely divorced his first wife to enable him to marry his second, and would not be "sanctioned" for doing so.

He could then have gone on to over-exert himself, die, and leave all to his new wife.

I think your entertaining analogy merely shows how ludicrous this position is, even though it appears to be the adopted view of the legal community.

Well i did expect my analogy to go over some peoples head gratified to see not everyones.

Peter

[basa48]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Well i did expect my analogy to go over some peoples head gratified to see not everyones.

Peter

The problem with the analogy Peter is that Polygamy is a crime and punishable at law by fine or imprisonment. So it isn't really a very good analogy as in the case of a faulty DN there is (apparantly) no crime and no punishment.

This is why most people find it so hard to swallow a law that has no sanction for breaking it.

[Guest]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Hi
Realise I should not refer to myself really this should be about the issues. But briefly there is a faction of here that I am banging some sort of self-righteous drum, I assure you I am not, those who have known me from over the road know I have done a lot of work on methods of challenging agreements in the course of defending debtors against the wrong doings of DCAs etc.
Thing is I take a pragmatic view of what will work and what will not, and unfortunately what worked five no a year ago does not necessarily work now, and some ideas never will work as the one prescribed on here.
When this first came up in surfaceagents post some years ago I though ,god I hope the CMCs don’t get hold of this idea, it sounds just credible enough for them to persuade people to hand over their hard earned cash before it is shown to be nonsense. I suppose that is why I went in on it so hard. Pleased this did not happen i think it was a bit to far left field even for them.
It is a shame that we on these forums have not been able to get our collective act together and dissuade the people who have already gone down this path.
Peter
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

The problem with the analogy Peter is that Polygamy is a crime and punishable at law by fine or imprisonment. So it isn't really a very good analogy as in the case of a faulty DN there is (apparantly) no crime and no punishment.

This is why most people find it so hard to swallow a law that has no sanction for breaking it.

The analogy was that an action can actually be taken but deemed in law not to be, as the temination after an inefective default.

It wasnt meant to be a factual comment. Anyway it onviously did not work for you.

Peter

[Guest]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Yes, but we are seeing a trend of arguments being developed which take things that step too far.

The circumstances you refer to above will be brought into light with the High Court Judgment being handed down tomorrow.

But these repudiatory arguments which have , and seemingly keep failing, need to be put to bed

Whole heartedley agree.

Peter

[Guest]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

I have heard (well read actually) the argument rumbling on in many places.
Is there such a thing as repudiation of a regulated agreement due to service of a Tn on the back of a faulty Dn

I see thrust in both sides of the argument, however.
If the creditor cannot lawfully terminate in a default situation without a valid Dn
Has he acted unlawfully in serving the Tn, and worse litigating?
If the creditor has acted in such a way then there must be a sanction or penalty.

I am not allowed to drive at a speed exceeding the speed limit unless I am an officer of the law responding to a call & have blues & twos going.
This does not stop me from exceeding the speed limit (I have the points to prove it) but there is a sanction.
Additionally the sanction should act as a warning to me to behave, if I continue my unlawful behaviour I face losing my license completely

Can't the same logic be applied to the CCA

I have this annalogy before and this really is a bad one.
Firstly there is a sanction he cannot enforce for a further period that is the one , the only one available.
Seconldly and more importantlyif the action of termination was punishable by some legal sanction other than this how would any creditor ever get to court?
It is for the judge to decide if the DN the subsequent termination are lawful, and the enforcemant can take place are you suggesting the creditor should be penalised for taking a debtor to court when he has defaulted his agrement, i dont think that will wash in the real world.
Peter