WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

The supreme Court ruling hits home both sides of the border

I wish I could be so confident, they seem to make a point of saying that they could make no judgement in the matter of assessing damages.

[Amethyst]

Re: WON !! Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court judgment 26/03/14

I think we wanted it to contradict McGuffick didn't we ? Does it actually ?

Someone give the wonderful Andrew Smith a ring and ask him to come explain it to us lol.

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

I think that care should be given regarding the statement the the creditor should have checked the "enforceability" of the agreement before entering the Default.

On the face of it this seems to contradict Mc Guffic and other established case law which says that reporting to the CRA is not enforcement.

It must be remembered that this case is talking about enforcement via way of the rescission of the agreement, not via the requirements of section 127 and the restriction of the ability to issue an enforcement order.

[ncf355]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

No, it isn't, its the level of damages in Richards case, its not a general one size fits all. Imagine a default causes your business to collapse and you lose your home etc, is £8k sufficient compensatory amount?

Sorry PT

I thought it was 2 different lines of damage:

1 for actual loss (which would be the business and home you state above) and then another general damages for the mere act of assumed injury to credit?

[Amethyst]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

Indeed.... but what does that actually mean ?

[pt2537]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

I think the supreme Court said it was an implied term that you could rescind.

So doesn't massively help the Hitachi / B&Q case ? As she had no contact with Hitachi after taking back the credit agreement and telling B&Q she was cancelling and making full payment for the goods via debit card instead. That can't be right?

[Amethyst]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

From the BBC Article

Mr Durkin said: "I am disappointed that the Supreme Court was unable to restore to me the full damages awarded by the sheriff - even though it was clear that they were sympathetic to my position on this.


"This decision is a great victory for all consumers and I am proud to have been the driving force behind it.
The laptop was bought from PC World in Aberdeen in the 1990s
"As a result of the decision, no consumer will have to endure again what I had to put up with - the loss of the ability to buy a family home because of wrongful blacklisting of me."
He added: "Taking a case to any court is a huge stress, but taking it to the highest court in the land with all the risks that go with it was the most stressful thing that anyone could voluntarily put themselves through.


"But sometimes you have to do what is right, and not what is easy."


Mr Durkin said: "I am grateful to my legal team, and to the Law Society of Scotland who funded the court fees which I could not afford.
"But I am most grateful for an end to this matter now, having fought a long and difficult battle which at last is over."

[pt2537]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

Unfortunately this is in Scotland, does anyone know if this would know apply in lower English courts ?

from what I have read the SC had no power to alter the award either way, so as far as that is concerned i do not see haw they can be considered to endorse the general damages issue this side of the border.

The supreme Court ruling hits home both sides of the border

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

Hmm

Having read the judgment and EXC quote above, seems pretty clear that 8K has been accepted as a reasonable amount for 'general injury to credit' (plus interest of course)

Unfortunately this is in Scotland, does anyone know if this would know apply in lower English courts ?

from what I have read the SC had no power to alter the award either way, so as far as that is concerned i do not see haw they can be considered to endorse the general damages issue this side of the border.

[Amethyst]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

So doesn't massively help the Hitachi / B&Q case ? As she had no contact with Hitachi after taking back the credit agreement and telling B&Q she was cancelling and making full payment for the goods via debit card instead. That can't be right?

[Amethyst]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

The SC only had the power to award the damages previously given as a 'finding of fact' in the 2010 case I think.

[pt2537]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

Hmm

Having read the judgment and EXC quote above, seems pretty clear that 8K has been accepted as a reasonable amount for 'general injury to credit' (plus interest of course)

No, it isn't, its the level of damages in Richards case, its not a general one size fits all. Imagine a default causes your business to collapse and you lose your home etc, is £8k sufficient compensatory amount?

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

Am I right in thinking the judgment means if you return goods the finance agreement is still not automatically cancelled, unless you put it in writing ? (para 30/31)

There are now rights to cancel such an agreement which were not available when Mr. D bought his computer.

[enaid]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

All on yer spread sheets lol dont want him ripped off with interest :beagle:

[Amethyst]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

26. It is inherent in a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement under section 12(b) of the 1974 Act, which is also tied into a specific supply transaction, that if the supply transaction which it financed is in effect brought to an end by the debtor’s acceptance of the supplier’s repudiatory breach of contract, the debtor must repay the borrowed funds which he recovers from the supplier. In my view, in order to reflect that reality, the law implies a term into such a credit agreement that it is conditional upon the survival of the supply agreement. The debtor on rejecting the goods and thereby rescinding the supply agreement for breach of contract may also rescind the credit agreement by invoking this condition. As the debtor has no right to retain or use for other purposes funds lent for the specific transaction, the creditor also may rescind the credit agreement. It appears to me that similar reasoning would apply to a section 12(c) agreement where the credit agreement tied the loan to a particular transaction.

27. I am satisfied therefore that Mr Durkin was entitled to rescind the credit agreement.

So does that say a consumer is entitled to rescind the credit agreement when he cancels supply agreement but not that it is automatically rescinded at the point the consumer cancels the supply agreement (ie returns the goods or pays by another method etc).... so the consumer must inform, by telephone or in writing the creditor that they rescind the credit agreement ??