Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

[Amethyst]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

I'm glad the Judge didn't get 'securitisation' either

He attributes the interest element to the requirements of “securitisation”. Quite what that means I do not know.

[Ihaterbs]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

was the dn bad on two issues?

[cymruambyth]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Hi pt thanks for posting this.
Yet more questions! If you have had a recent CCJ when there were insufficient days for the remedy of the DN, would this judgement be grounds to apply for a set aside? DN issued on 10 April with remedy before 17th. Commented on and ignored by DJ (During 7 day for remedy period)
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I am ever the optimist!
Thank you


Read more at: Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011 - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Link, were not "the creditor" at the time that the ineffective DN was served!

Very true AC, but as the debt was assigned to Link would they then have to assign it back to MBNA in order for the latter to serve the new DN?

(Yet another hurdle for all parties to overcome in order to get this second DN to the debtor).

[fluffystuff]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Harrisons Judge was a specialist Mercantile court judge who has background in CCA cases

:amen:

[buster1967]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Hi pt thanks for posting this.
Yet more questions! If you have had a recent CCJ when there were insufficient days for the remedy of the DN, would this judgement be grounds to apply for a set aside? DN issued on 10 April with remedy before 17th. Commented on and ignored by DJ (During 7 day for remedy period)
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I am ever the optimist!
Thank you


Read more at: Harrison v Link (MBNA) Feb 2011 - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

Very interesting though, it opens a whole can of worms,
Surely If its not valid its not valid and enforcement based upon it unlawfull , surely the creditors cant have it every which way .

Im hoping Brandon will clarify it once and for all, what can and cant be done on the back of a dodgy DN, and when re issue can be done etc



Bx

[ncf355]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Just seen this at 2230 with several rum n cokes down, and it isnt the drink that's giving a warm feeling

Very nice ruling, especially with the debtor being the claimant

Good work PT

[Guest]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Hi

Yes it was an exceptional judgement, not just because it settles the reissue of default issue( well we all new that really didn’t we).
But mainly because of the way the judge went after MBNA for their despicable treatment of the debtor.
I think this really does open a whole new can of worms as a previous poster said. Perhaps we can now start looking directly at the amount of harm creditors/ DCAs cause by their practices, and maybe start using these, instead of trying to find technical defects in agreements.
I have seen one or two postings already commenting on MBNA are suddenly being more accommodating with offers of reduced payments coincidence? Maybe.

Well done to all involved
Peter

[mystery1]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Hi

Yes it was an exceptional judgement, not just because it settles the reissue of default issue( well we all new that really didn’t we).
But mainly because of the way the judge went after MBNA for their despicable treatment of the debtor.
I think this really does open a whole new can of worms as a previous poster said. Perhaps we can now start looking directly at the amount of harm creditors/ DCAs cause by their practices, and maybe start using these, instead of trying to find technical defects in agreements.
I have seen one or two postings already commenting on MBNA are suddenly being more accommodating with offers of reduced payments coincidence? Maybe.

Well done to all involved
Peter

I'm not sure how the default issue has been settled, no matter which side of the fence you sit on. The judge passed comment but made no ruling to say a crditor could re-issue if the agreement was dead and didn't say the agreement was dead or alive.

The notice of enforcement

The notice of enforcement was a statutory pre-condition of enforcement. It was a bad notice and enforcement cannot be attempted in dependence upon it. However, bad notices can often be remedied by the service of good notices and I see no reason why that should not be so in respect of credit agreements.



I don't think Diddydicky or anyone said a bad notice couldn't be rectified pre-termination. The issue has always seemed to be whether the termination could be used by the borrower to repudiate the agreement.

The judgement confirms a creditor cannot win unless the default notice complies with statute. The big question is - will a judge allow an adjournment to allow the creditor time to fix their faults in compliance with statute and if not will they ever get past res judicata ?

M1

[toomanycalls]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

I'm not sure how the default issue has been settled, no matter which side of the fence you sit on. The judge passed comment but made no ruling to say a crditor could re-issue if the agreement was dead and didn't say the agreement was dead or alive.

The notice of enforcement

The notice of enforcement was a statutory pre-condition of enforcement. It was a bad notice and enforcement cannot be attempted in dependence upon it. However, bad notices can often be remedied by the service of good notices and I see no reason why that should not be so in respect of credit agreements.



I don't think Diddydicky or anyone said a bad notice couldn't be rectified pre-termination. The issue has always seemed to be whether the termination could be used by the borrower to repudiate the agreement.

The judgement confirms a creditor cannot win unless the default notice complies with statute. The big question is - will a judge allow an adjournment to allow the creditor time to fix their faults in compliance with statute and if not will they ever get past res judicata ?

M1

I agree, I think that this verifies that the DN must be accurate and that's it. It unfortunately doesn't give any indication of the effect of ending up in court with a bad DN against you aside from no enforcement at that point.

We are still to establish what would happen if a creditor was to reissue and the knock on effect of CPUTR.

[Guest]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

I'm not sure how the default issue has been settled, no matter which side of the fence you sit on. The judge passed comment but made no ruling to say a crditor could re-issue if the agreement was dead and didn't say the agreement was dead or alive.

The notice of enforcement

The notice of enforcement was a statutory pre-condition of enforcement. It was a bad notice and enforcement cannot be attempted in dependence upon it. However, bad notices can often be remedied by the service of good notices and I see no reason why that should not be so in respect of credit agreements.



I don't think Diddydicky or anyone said a bad notice couldn't be rectified pre-termination. The issue has always seemed to be whether the termination could be used by the borrower to repudiate the agreement.

The judgement confirms a creditor cannot win unless the default notice complies with statute. The big question is - will a judge allow an adjournment to allow the creditor time to fix their faults in compliance with statute and if not will they ever get past res judicata ?

M1

HI
So your saying that this case went to court without being terminated?

Are you also saying that the attempted enforcement of this case was done without terminated the agrement.

That the creditor went straight from issuing the default to court action skiping over termination.

Just for clarity

Peter

[Guest]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

I'm not sure how the default issue has been settled, no matter which side of the fence you sit on. The judge passed comment but made no ruling to say a crditor could re-issue if the agreement was dead and didn't say the agreement was dead or alive.

The notice of enforcement

The notice of enforcement was a statutory pre-condition of enforcement. It was a bad notice and enforcement cannot be attempted in dependence upon it. However, bad notices can often be remedied by the service of good notices and I see no reason why that should not be so in respect of credit agreements.



I don't think Diddydicky or anyone said a bad notice couldn't be rectified pre-termination. The issue has always seemed to be whether the termination could be used by the borrower to repudiate the agreement.

The judgement confirms a creditor cannot win unless the default notice complies with statute. The big question is - will a judge allow an adjournment to allow the creditor time to fix their faults in compliance with statute and if not will they ever get past res judicata ?

M1

"Bad notices can be remedied by issuance of good notices"

I think that answers your big question doesnt it?
Petr

[jumper999]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

"Bad notices can be remedied by issuance of good notices"

I think that answers your big question doesnt it?
Petr

What happens if when the creditor terminates after issuing a bad notice? and then proceeds with court action?

[mystery1]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

I'm saying those who argued a duff dn prevented termination and thus repudiation by the debtor did not get a ruling to that effect.

I did not say whether this agreement was terminated or not.

M1

[toomanycalls]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

What happens if when the creditor terminates after issuing a bad notice? and then proceeds with court action?

He can't terminate after a bad notice. This is where it then begins to get into the unfair relationship stuff though.