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

[mystery1]

Re: Richard Durkin / PC World supreme court

Consideration is an essential part of formation of contract anywhere I would have thought, anyway this is in the English supreme court hearing isn't it ? and the act (CCA)of course is applicable in Scots courts.

The element appears to be in the new pleadings in any case.

Wrong on 2 counts.

Consideration is not an element of Scottish contract law and Aberdeen is in Scotland so it's not the English supreme court and in any case even if it was an English case there is no English supreme court.


I suggest Gloag might enlighten you.

M1

Re: Richard Durkin / PC World supreme court

No consideration in Scots contract law.

M1

Consideration is an essential part of formation of contract anywhere I would have thought, anyway this is in the English supreme court hearing isn't it ? and the act (CCA)of course is applicable in Scots courts.

The element appears to be in the new pleadings in any case.

[mystery1]

Re: Richard Durkin / PC World supreme court

Personally i think you are right here Sparkie, and IMO this is a strong aspect of the new pleadings.

The case thus far as far as I can see has been based around the section 75 (12a)issues and failed because the court decided that the agreement for the sale was not appropriately linked to the credit agreement and therefore unable to avail itself of the section 75 protection.

However as you say in order for a contract to be "made" (ie the credit agreement) there has to be a consideration, if no goods or credit was advanced then surely no agreement was ever made and thus it should be void under section 57 of the act(and in fact common law).

Be watching this with great interest and wish Richard all the bests (everything crossed )

No consideration in Scots contract law.

M1

Re: Richard Durkin / PC World supreme court

Added thought.........Should not Richards agreement be consinsidered and in complete one.....because he has not received the goods the agreement relates to

Personally i think you are right here Sparkie, and IMO this is a strong aspect of the new pleadings.

The case thus far as far as I can see has been based around the section 75 (12a)issues and failed because the court decided that the agreement for the sale was not appropriately linked to the credit agreement and therefore unable to avail itself of the section 75 protection.

However as you say in order for a contract to be "made" (ie the credit agreement) there has to be a consideration, if no goods or credit was advanced then surely no agreement was ever made and thus it should be void under section 57 of the act(and in fact common law).

Be watching this with great interest and wish Richard all the bests (everything crossed )

[EXC]

Re: Richard Durkin / PC World supreme court

The hearing has been listed for a single day.

One of the 5 judges sitting on the case is Jonathon Sumption who as a QC won the day for the banks in the bank charges test case, not that it will have any adverse effect on Richard's case.

[Lord_Alcohol]

Re: Richard Durkin / PC World supreme court

The whole thing is almost unbelievable. Perverse, IMO. I truly hope that Richard is allowed to receive the redress that is clearly called for and that HSBC pay a very heavy price for their appalling conduct.

If the bank expects to obtain credit agreements where there is no contract of sale or even goods, then I would expect the OFT to be looking at this with a view to revoking HSBC's credit licence (unless it's now completely lost its nerve).

It's also incredible that the ICO won't lift a finger where "contractual" or "legal" matters are concerned. While there might be a distorted argument that the data recorded was "accurate", it was hardly "fair"; I would have thought that the ICO would be looking at this in order to advise creditors not to cherry pick the bits of the DPA that suit them.

Good luck Richard!

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Richard Durkin / PC World supreme court

If what I post here is considered a load of rubbish the tell me to butt out by all means..... I know that I ramble on a bit..... a lot of the time ..but the way I see Richard D's case is.The alleged credit agreement was a creditor-debtor -supplier Hire Purchase agreement.


Which in my uneducated iterpretation of is that.
The Supplier sells the goods to the supplier at a price known only to the supplier who is the agent of the creditor. at alomost certainly a big discount.
The Supplier has been paid for the goods at that point.


The Creditor then makes the Hire Purchase agreement between the Debtor and The Creditor
So far this is what happened in Richards case.


But before this agreement could be fully executed in a proper fair dilligent lawful manner there was an Underlying agreement which should have taken precedent over the HP agreement/contact before the main HP agreement could take place.


This agreement ( a common law contract) was made between the supplier and the "potential debtor" that if the goods were not as stated and did not meet the specifications the goods were intended to be used for, and intended to be purchased for the purchase and sale would not take place, and the deposit for the intended purchase would be returned. The intended H.p agreement torn up


It is clear that the goods/laptop did not suit the specificatios it was intended to be sold for and the L/P was returned and the deposit refunded because it was not fit for the purpose it was intended to be purchased for.


The sequence of hese events are well documented.


Big questions enter my senile mind.
Why did the PC World sales person not say to Richard OK I'll check with my manager and see if I can carefully open the package to ensure that it does meet the specs you need? Or pick up the phone and obtain confirmation from the manufacturer.
Why did he tell Richard to take it away from the premises??
My belief is that the sales person knew it didn't ( un provable) but if he told Richard that it didn't the sale would be lost and he would lose his sales commission, and to ensure he did he " Conned " Richard into signed the HP agreement to make sure PC world got paid and he got his commission.


One other point I think even his legal team have missed is I truly and sincerely believe that HFC Bank would have also paid PC world an undisclosed secret commission.
If they did and had been discovered they did ........the Wilson v Hurstanger and a lot of other case could have been used........and would have assisted Richards case no end ...but I think its too late for this now.


Sorry for my ramblings.......but I hope members can follow what I'm trying to suggest.

BUt as far as I can see its PC world that should have returned the money they received from HFC..........because Richard bought nothing because he received nothing. Pc World sold nothing ...but got paid for nothing


Ole Sparkie

Added thought.........Should not Richards agreement be consinsidered and in complete one.....because he has not received the goods the agreement relates to

[EXC]

Re: Richard Durkin / PC World supreme court

Hopefully we should be able to watch the hearing live on Sky http://news.sky.com/info/supreme-court

[EXC]

Re: Richard Durkin supreme court help needed

From today's Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/...-supreme-court

16-year legal battle over laptop reaches UK supreme court

Richard Durkin says credit black mark left him unable to buy home after he returned computer at PC World

All Richard Durkin wanted was a laptop with an inbuilt modem. But what he ended up with was an epic 16-year legal tussle, a £250,000 bill for legal fees and, now, a date at the supreme court.

The 44-year-old married father of two has been engaged in a David-and-Goliath battle against the bank that he says "annihilated" his credit rating after he walked into his local PC World to buy a £1,500 laptop in 1998.

With the help of a supportive QC, a charity and a leading solicitors' body, he has now succeeded in winning a hearing at the supreme court, which is reserved for cases "of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population". On 28 January a panel of five justices will decide once and for all whether he was the victim of an injustice following a dispute over a credit agreement.

He is seeking a six-figure sum after arguing that being wrongly blacklisted meant he was unable to buy a home; papers lodged with the court state that Durkin alleges the bank's conduct "amounted to extortion". The marathon legal row is seen as an important test case for thousands of people who say their lives have been ruined after black marks were put on their credit files.

"People don't realise how much damage a default on your credit record does until they actually have one," he said. "It's like I'm in a financial jail." He acknowledged that taking his case to the supreme court was a high-stakes move: "If I lose, I go bankrupt – simple as that."

The saga began on 28 December 1998, when Durkin, an offshore construction surveyor, went to the Aberdeen branch of PC World to buy a laptop. The sales assistant pointed out a particular model, but it was in a sealed box, so it was not possible to check whether it had the right modem.

It is claimed that the assistant suggested Durkin buy the laptop, saying that if there was a problem he could return it and get his £50 deposit back. Durkin bought the computer, handed over his £50 and signed a credit agreement with HFC Bank – which provided PC World's in-store finance and is part of the HSBC group – for £1,449 to cover the balance. When he got home he found the laptop did not have an inbuilt modem, so he took it back the next morning. But the manager on duty refused to take the computer back, refund his £50 or cancel the agreement.

Durkin left the laptop at the shop, then went to work offshore, but when he got home a fortnight later he found the laptop waiting for him. He again took it back to the shop, where it stayed, and later sued PC World for the £50. The company paid up without admitting liability. Durkin assumed that was the end of the matter, but HFC Bank said he was still required to make payments under the terms of the agreement. He says he explained what had happened, but the bank warned that if he did not pay up, possible consequences included "difficulty in the future in obtaining a mortgage or other credit".

Sure enough, HFC Bank later put a default notice on his Experian and Equifax credit files. Durkin says he tried without success to get these black marks removed, and the bank "made no inquiries into [Durkin's] claim that he had been entitled to and had in fact rescinded his contract of sale", according to a 2010 court judgment. The black marks stayed on his files until at least 2005.

This had a major impact on his finances and, he claims, prevented him from buying a family home in Spain in late 2003. He says that because of the default notice, he was not able to raise enough money for a 30% deposit on a €300,000 property in Malaga.

The case eventually made it to Aberdeen sheriff court where, in March 2008, Durkin won his case. Sheriff James Tierney ruled that he had been entitled to reject the laptop and cancel the sale and the credit agreement. The court awarded damages of £116,000 to Durkin. But, two years later, that decision was overturned by judges at the court of session in Edinburgh. They ruled that even though the sale of the laptop had been cancelled, the contract of sale and the contract of loan were separate agreements, and Durkin was not entitled to cancel his credit agreement. That meant the information put on his file about him being in default was factually accurate, they added.

The judges also highlighted Durkin's spending levels at the time: they said that between mid-2001 and late 2005, his credit card debt jumped from £4,000 to £37,000. "It appears to have been the general level of [Durkin's] expenditure, linked to his decision not to become a Spanish tax resident, in which event a 95% mortgage would have been available to him ... that led to his being unable to afford to proceed with the purchase of a property in Spain," they said.

For its part, PC World has previously argued that Durkin bought the laptop in the knowledge that it did not have an internal modem, while HFC Bank's case is that he "made no call on them to amend the entries" on his files, and that the injury and damage he claimed to have suffered was "too remote a consequence of the alleged negligence", according to the 2008 ruling.

While some people might have thrown in the towel at that point, Durkin decided to plough on. The charity LawWorks – which provides free legal help to those who cannot afford to pay for it – put him in touch with a leading Scottish QC, Andrew Smith, who agreed to act for him on a pro bono basis and will now represent him at the supreme court. Meanwhile, the Law Society of Scotland helped with funding the court costs.

"The stress hasn't killed me yet," Durkin replied when asked how, and why, he had battled away at this for so many years. "It's too late to throw in the towel – I'd be bankrupt for doing the right thing." He added that if he did not win justice, banks would continue "destroying lives unhindered".

HSBC and Dixons Retail, which owns PC World, both declined to comment.

[Rico]

Re: Richard Durkin supreme court help needed

Here's their latest drivel

[MIKE770]

Re: Richard Durkin supreme court help needed

sod have lost me 5p now lol

No change there then!

[enaid]

Re: Richard Durkin supreme court help needed

Twang!!!!!!!!!!! watching also - good luck!

sod have lost me 5p now lol

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Richard Durkin supreme court help needed

Hi Richard,
I'll be watching this so close I'll be stuck to the pages of your submissions.
My good luck wishes to you.

Sparkie

[MIKE770]

Re: Richard Durkin supreme court help needed

In suspenders, good luck x

Twang!!!!!!!!!!! watching also - good luck!

[enaid]

Re: Richard Durkin supreme court help needed

In suspenders, good luck x