Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

[Guest]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

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

The court will decide if the DN is really bad if it is then the creditor will be made to issue another one give another period to remedy and then terminate and enforce.

Peter
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

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

AHHHHHHHJJJJJ

[mystery1]

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

NO it doesn't.

I have already said it is widely accepted that bad notices can be corrected by good notices. What i asked is whether a judge would allow a trial to be suspended to allow it to happen or whether the creditor would have to abandon and start again in the court.

M1

[Amethyst]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

[Guest]

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

If the termination existed then the notice would not be capable of remedy by issuance of a new DN on a terminated account. The termination would have had to have existed for the debtor to accept it.

The termination could not exist because the DN was defective so no unlawful termination no acceptance of same.

Any way i have read hese words so many times i can quote them from memory.

" the idea that a creditor can just keep re issuing an default, that he can just have another go at getting it right is frankly ludicrous".

I can look up the postings if you like there are enough of them.
Well turns out it isnt lujdicrous at all it never was.

Now cant we just move on.

Peter

[mystery1]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

If the termination existed then the notice would not be capable of remedy by issuance of a new DN on a terminated account. The termination would have had to have existed for the debtor to accept it.

The termination could not exist because the DN was defective so no unlawful termination no acceptance of same.

Any way i have read hese words so many times i can quote them from memory.

" the idea that a creditor can just keep re issuing an default, that he can just have another go at getting it right is frankly ludicrous".

I can look up the postings if you like there are enough of them.
Well turns out it isnt lujdicrous at all it never was.

Now cant we just move on.

Peter

Peter, In light of the court order Ame has posted, which does answer my question, does going to court asking for balances not yet due amount to an abuse of process or is the agreement terminated ?

M1

[volvodriver]

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

Bit of selectiuve quoting here me thinks.

It actually says:

"

• . 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."

In the English I learned and studied the word often does not mean always. We should be asking when does "often" apply in respect of default notices, and what are the criteria for deciding whether in any particicular set of circumstances it can be remedied.

I consider the issue of bad notices still very much alive and kicking.

Vdr

[Guest]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

NO it doesn't.

I have already said it is widely accepted that bad notices can be corrected by good notices. What i asked is whether a judge would allow a trial to be suspended to allow it to happen or whether the creditor would have to abandon and start again in the court.

M1

Sorry
I think that would depend on the circumstances of the case and the nature of the error in the DN

Peter

[pt2537]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

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.

No impact at all,

The CPUT regs arent enforceable by the lay person, only the regulator.

As for no enforcement, they cannot terminate as termination IS enforcement on the back of a bad notice

Judge Chambers made that clear

[Guest]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Bit of selectiuve quoting here me thinks.

It actually says:


"

• . 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."

In the English I learned and studied the word often does not mean always. We should be asking when does "often" apply in respect of default notices, and what are the criteria for deciding whether in any particicular set of circumstances it can be remedied.

I consider the issue of bad notices still very much alive and kicking.

Vdr

Ahh "you consider" now does that mean it is alive and kicking, or it may be alive and kicking . Is this a statement of fact or mearly conjecture.
I see what you mean




Peter

[Amethyst]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

In the case I posted a couple of documents from it was an asking for sums not yet due error in the DN - they went to court - it was defended on the DN - court said okay i'll stay it - reissue the DN and come back to me - they did reissue - still wasnt remedied (another stay was in after the one I posted too so extra time given) - stay was lifted and judgment went against defendant - installment and costs order given.

[toomanycalls]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

No impact at all,

The CPUT regs arent enforceable by the lay person, only the regulator.

As for no enforcement, they cannot terminate as termination IS enforcement on the back of a bad notice

Judge Chambers made that clear

So in my case, DN with no time for service and full amount claimed instead of arrears, termination letter (obviously disallowed), court claim issued referring on POC to the bad DN. They can stop proceedings at any stage and reissue the DN?

I'm at AQ right now, should I go for a strike out based on no right to proceed due to duff DN or just cave in now as they will just reissue and get away with it?

[volvodriver]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Ahh "you consider" now does that mean it is alive and kicking, or it may be alive and kicking . Is this a statement of fact or mearly conjecture.
I see what you mean




Peter

English is a wondeful language when used and understood correctly.

consider = Think carefully about (something), typically before making a decision

It is neither a fact, nor a conjecture, perhaps on the way to becoming reasoned point of view from an agnostic perspective.

Vdr

[Guest]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

In the case I posted a couple of documents from it was an asking for sums not yet due error in the DN - they went to court - it was defended on the DN - court said okay i'll stay it - reissue the DN and come back to me - they did reissue - still wasnt remedied (another stay was in after the one I posted too so extra time given) - stay was lifted and judgment went against defendant - installment and costs order given.

.


HI Thanks for that Amy it is not an unusual scenarion but nice to have it in black and white.

Thing is they where able to do this because the account was not terminated it could not be because the orriginal default was defective.This enabled them to reissue and enforce.

Peter

[volvodriver]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

I see what you mean

Does that mean you agree with me?

[Amethyst]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

So in my case, DN with no time for service and full amount claimed instead of arrears, termination letter (obviously disallowed), court claim issued referring on POC to the bad DN. They can stop proceedings at any stage and reissue the DN?

I'm at AQ right now, should I go for a strike out based on no right to proceed due to duff DN or just cave in now as they will just reissue and get away with it?

If that is the case and they reissue a DN then you will only be obliged to pay the arrears then continue with the agreement. Of course it depends very much whether there is a large or small chunk of sums not yet due that is claimed and on your personal circumstances....but I don't think anyone is saying chuck in the towel - it may just be more of a maths decision - which way is to your greater benefit.

In the case I posted below the defendant was much more likely to have been in a position to pay arrears of £600 rather than the entire account of £3k as 2,4k wasn;t actually due and they had not been able to terminate because of the defective DN. It is a second chance for the debtor as well as the creditor in my view, but how realistic a one it is depends on individual circumstances.

(ie if you cave now you'd be making an offer to pay by installment of the £3k whereas if they have to reissue you'll need to pay off the arrears of £600 then carry on with the agreement)