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

[Guest]

Re: Richard Durkin / PC World supreme court

What a weird creature Scottish law is, however the point is still relevant as the cca considers it essential in the making of an agreement.

Also I would have thought that the Supreme court would be influenced by the requirements of English common law, certainly precedent established there will be applicable in English courts which is a feature Scottish cases do not have.

In any case as said this is a feature of the claim so it seems Richards Barrister is of similar opinion.

[mystery1]

Re: Richard Durkin / PC World supreme court

I'm off to work

http://en.jurispedia.org/index.php/C...Law_(Scotland)

M1

[Guest]

Re: Richard Durkin / PC World supreme court

I'm off to work

http://en.jurispedia.org/index.php/C...Law_(Scotland)

M1

Have a good time

[Guest]

Re: Richard Durkin / PC World supreme court

IT is in my unqualified view that the whole of the UK Supreme Court.......Scotland has not disassociated itself from the UK as of yet so the UK Supreme Court is the ultimate Power.
The highest Court in Scotland is the Appeal Court same as in N.Ireland......appeals from N.Ireland come to the UK Supreme Court, and as Andy says this is about the UK Consumer Credit Act and the UK data protection Act.
JUst my opinion ......been wrong before wont be surprised if I'm wrong again.

But under SCots law isn't it called an "Invition to Treat"

Sparkie

Hi Sparkie


Pertinent section in 3.1 onward in Richards Claim on post 92

[Sparkie1723]

Re: Richard Durkin / PC World supreme court

Hi Sparkie


Pertinent section in 3.1 onward in Richards Claim on post 92

Gotcha matey and IMO exactly what we interpret it as....no goods bought.............no money lent to Richard....PC World have it and had the use of it since HFC paid it to them.
Richard certainly has had no use of it or advataged by it ......competely the oposite he has been crucified.
IMO it is PC World that should be hammered as they have kept the funds knowing they should not have kept it.
Sparkie

[Guest]

Re: Richard Durkin / PC World supreme court

Gotcha matey and IMO exactly what we interpret it as....no goods bought.............no money lent to Richard....PC World have it and had the use of it since HFC paid it to them.
Richard certainly has had no use of it or advataged by it ......competely the oposite he has been crucified.
IMO it is PC World that should be hammered as they have kept the funds knowing they should not have kept it.
Sparkie

Yes IMO

[Rico]

Re: Richard Durkin / PC World supreme court

Hi Folks,

News just in last night that the Supreme Court have ruled by majority that they're not willing to consider the Section 56 argument.

Although it fits perfectly with the condescendence, facts and evidence, previous counsel did not put enough emphasis on it.

This clears the path for the court to sort out Section 75 for the benefit of all of us.

The fact that 2 of the justices were willing to consider Section 56 bodes well as that would have blown HFC clean out of the water.

Cheers,

Richard

[Amethyst]

Re: Richard Durkin / PC World supreme court

Just for ref, and checking I'm on the right page...

Section 56 not being argued now

56 Antecedent negotiations.

(1)In this Act “antecedent negotiations ” means any negotiations with the debtor or hirer—

(a)conducted by the creditor or owner in relation to the making of any regulated agreement, or

(b)conducted by a credit-broker in relation to goods sold or proposed to be sold by the credit-broker to the creditor before forming the subject-matter of a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement within section 12(a), or

(c)conducted by the supplier in relation to a transaction financed or proposed to be financed by a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement within section 12(b) or (c),

and “negotiator ” means the person by whom negotiations are so conducted with the debtor or hirer.

(2)Negotiations with the debtor in a case falling within subsection (1)(b) or (c) shall be deemed to be conducted by the negotiator in the capacity of agent of the creditor as well as in his actual capacity.

(3)An agreement is void if, and to the extent that, it purports in relation to an actual or prospective regulated agreement—

(a)to provide that a person acting as, or on behalf of, a negotiator is to be treated as the agent of the debtor or hirer, or

(b)to relieve a person from liability for acts or omissions of any person acting as, or on behalf of, a negotiator.

(4)For the purposes of this Act, antecedent negotiations shall be taken to begin when the negotiator and the debtor or hirer first enter into communication (including communication by advertisement), and to include any representations made by the negotiator to the debtor or hirer and any other dealings between them.

Section 75 being argued Para 3.7 http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...1&d=1388511131

75 Liability of creditor for breaches by supplier.

(1)If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor.

(2)Subject to any agreement between them, the creditor shall be entitled to be indemnified by the supplier for loss suffered by the creditor in satisfying his liability under subsection (1), including costs reasonably incurred by him in defending proceedings instituted by the debtor.

(3)Subsection (1) does not apply to a claim—

(a)under a non-commercial agreement, F1. . .

(b)so far as the claim relates to any single item to which the supplier has attached a cash price not exceeding [F2£100] or more than [F3£30,000][F4, or]

[F5(c)under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement for running-account credit—

(i)which provides for the making of payments by the debtor in relation to specified periods which, in the case of an agreement which is not secured on land, do not exceed three months, and

(ii)which requires that the number of payments to be made by the debtor in repayments of the whole amount of the credit provided in each such period shall not exceed one.]

(4)This section applies notwithstanding that the debtor, in entering into the transaction, exceeded the credit limit or otherwise contravened any term of the agreement.

(5)In an action brought against the creditor under subsection (1) he shall be entitled, in accordance with rules of court, to have the supplier made a party to the proceedings.

[Amethyst]

Re: Richard Durkin / PC World supreme court

Hi Folks,

News just in last night that the Supreme Court have ruled by majority that they're not willing to consider the Section 56 argument.

Although it fits perfectly with the condescendence, facts and evidence, previous counsel did not put enough emphasis on it.

This clears the path for the court to sort out Section 75 for the benefit of all of us.

The fact that 2 of the justices were willing to consider Section 56 bodes well as that would have blown HFC clean out of the water.

Cheers,

Richard

Have they given reasons because the appeal docs put section 56 as the primary argument ?

[Guest]

Re: Richard Durkin / PC World supreme court

A damn shame, and grossly unfair in my view. I understand this is because the issue was not adequately raised in the earlier hearing, but it is still an issue nevertheless.

It is totally unfair that this is not allowed to be argued in my opinion.

[pt2537]

Re: Richard Durkin / PC World supreme court

I think s75 will prevail anyway, I think back to the issues around PPI and unenforceability and the arguments that the Loan and PPI were so closly linked that one couldn't stand without the other etc. This seems the case here, you cannot have a credit agreement where you use the credit to purchase goods which are identified in the agreement under a debtor creditor supplier relationship where the goods are not conforming to the contract, only for the creditor to say not our problem you have to pay even if you don't have the goods. This is what I understand the banks have suggested? or have I got that bit wrong?

The purpose of s75 is clearly set out in the crowther report. It is to allow debtors a right to seek a remedy from a creditor.

If the supreme court uphold the appeal courts r uling they are effectively stifling that part of the act from having any utility

Have they given reasons because the appeal docs put section 56 as the primary argument ?

[Guest]

Re: Richard Durkin / PC World supreme court

Lets hope so.


It does seem unfair though, especially because the pre-contractual issues were raised by the judge in the earlier case. even if they were not predominant in the pleadings.

[Rico]

Re: Richard Durkin / PC World supreme court

I understand this is because the issue was not adequately raised in the earlier hearing, but it is still an issue nevertheless.

That's all the info I have just now. We're still confident that Sheriff Tierney interpreted the law correctly, despite failing to award appropriate reparation.

Rico.

[Amethyst]

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

Is it Smith and Pugh still Rico ?

[ncf355]

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

Sorry,

I've allowed myself to get a little confused along the way

If this goes Richard's way (and I wish you all the luck in the world with it), is this automatically binding on English courts?

I ask as I had a case a few months ago where I attempted use of the King v British linen and the judge just wouldnt even consider it due to it being Scottish

Thanks

NcF