Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

I've really got no idea, but I cannot understand why a supposedly astute financial organisation shopuld be able to issue DN's until they get it right, and even after court proceedings have been issued, the right of issue of same which only arises after the issue of a DN which is in every respect correct.

I cannot accept that that is any sort of justice, its legal harrasment of the first order which cannot be right.

Vdr

There it is

So you think that a default that is defective should be issued, or cannot be issued

Peter

[Amethyst]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

I've really got no idea, but I cannot understand why a supposedly astute financial organisation shopuld be able to issue DN's until they get it right, and even after court proceedings have been issued, the right of issue of same which only arises after the issue of a DN which is in every respect correct.

I cannot accept that that is any sort of justice, its legal harrasment of the first order which cannot be right.

Vdr

Okay, I think that if a case is stayed on an occassion for a creditor to reissue a correct DN and they issue a 'bad notice' again, then the court would have less leniancy on them and then the abuse of process may well come into play and consider striking out their claim so they have to ask for permission for another shot.

I don't know any case where it has happened ?

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

[volvodriver]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

as I spelled out numerous times, so why would you imply I said otherwise? I know full well that the debtor (consumer/Harrison) was the claimant and never suggested otherwise?

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

[volvodriver]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

I see you do not think a fault dn can be re presented Peter

Obfuscation from PB again.

I write very precise English

Please post up where I said that. And when you cant, dont put words into my mouth.

Vdr

[New_Age_Biker]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Hi
Iam by no means an expet in court procedings but wouldnt ther have to be some sort of intent involved in an abuse of process allegation.

Peter

I have no idea Peter, thats why I asked

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

I think it was M1 who asked if being at trial on the back of a faulty Dn/ termination represented abuse of process
i.e.
A Dn should have a date, being a date, when the debtor should rectify by
I have Dn's that state 17 days from the date of this notice

Clearly the Dn is faulty, when we get to court it will be on the back of a faulty DN
Is that abuse of process? The fact has already been pointed out to the OC

Hi
Iam by no means an expet in court procedings but wouldnt ther have to be some sort of intent involved in an abuse of process allegation.

Peter

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Yes but.

The DCA was the defendant not the claimant.
Vdr

as I spelled out numerous times, so why would you imply I said otherwise? I know full well that the debtor (consumer/Harrison) was the claimant and never suggested otherwise?

[jumper999]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

I wrote this on my site!!

I know that's where I copied it from LOL :tinysmile_kiss_t4:
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

At last something I can agree whole heartedly with!:beagle:

Good that's a good start

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Paul, what is your take on the word OFTEN in the sentence quoted?

Does it have a different impact in law to that in common English useage?

I'm not trying to be clever, I'm seeking to understand.

Vdr
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------


Obfuscation is the concealment of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, intentionally ambiguous, and more difficult to interpret.

in reply to your question, see my reply to Amethyst

Vdr

I see you do not think a fault dn can be re presented .What do yhou say to the re represented documents on here. Are they to in some way missqquoted?

Peter

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

This is copied from another site which I believe sums it up quite nicely


Put simply there was a bad default notice, they defaulted and assigned the account prior to the rememdy period, the remedy period was only 12 days (not 14), there were no terms sent and the Judge agreed with the claimant (ie the debtor).

The judge threw out the claimants counterclaim and instead quashed the original debt of £20k - the claimant (ie the consumer) won!

This is another fine example of case law to follow against MBNA and their slap-happy attitude of taking action, and also highlights that judges DO agree that not all banks are perfect!

I wrote this on my site!!

[New_Age_Biker]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

I think it was M1 who asked if being at trial on the back of a faulty Dn/ termination represented abuse of process
i.e.
A Dn should have a date, being a date, when the debtor should rectify by
I have Dn's that state 17 days from the date of this notice

Clearly the Dn is faulty, when we get to court it will be on the back of a faulty DN
Is that abuse of process? The fact has already been pointed out to the OC

[volvodriver]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Which I think is bloody awesome and nice to see the shoe on the other foot for once :tinysmile_kiss_t4:

At last something I can agree whole heartedly with!:beagle:

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Cheers guys. Brilliant entertainment value & great to see so many differing views.

Paul, well done to you & Watsons for the brilliant result (Harrison v Link). Awesome news.

[jumper999]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

Yes but.

The DCA was the defendant not the claimant.

Vdr

Which I think is bloody awesome and nice to see the shoe on the other foot for once :tinysmile_kiss_t4:

[volvodriver]

Re: Contracts, Termination, Repudiation and Rescission

This is copied from another site which I believe sums it up quite nicely


Put simply there was a bad default notice, they defaulted and assigned the account prior to the rememdy period, the remedy period was only 12 days (not 14), there were no terms sent and the Judge agreed with the claimant (ie the debtor).

The judge threw out the claimants counterclaim and instead quashed the original debt of £20k - the claimant (ie the consumer) won!

This is another fine example of case law to follow against MBNA and their slap-happy attitude of taking action, and also highlights that judges DO agree that not all banks are perfect!

Yes but.

The DCA was the defendant not the claimant.

Vdr
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

It seems to me that the judge was saying that bad notices can often be remedied, as we can see from case law, such as Manni Investments vs Eagle star direct

And that those principles there can equally apply here where a notice is found to be bad, a good notice can be issued to remedy this

We must remember the underlying reason for a default notice is to tell you what you have done wrong and what you must do to put it right
It is not to allow you to borrow money and not pay it back.

Thats the trouble, now the court said no enforcement on the back of a bad notice so if the court finds at trial the notice is bad then that is that they cannot enforce

Sorry again Paul.

What or who decides if they can be remedied, if often applies, that implies there is some criteria when it can and cant.

You quoted a case where it can. Is there one where it cant?

Vdr