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

[ncf355]

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

Current DSG Argument point around Duty of Care appears to be taking a beating from the Bench !

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

HI Sparkie

The credit agreement was was a debtor creditor supplier agreement, for restricted use not a HP agreement.

I believe the contract of sale was concluded on the issue of the deposit and the taking of the goods, although this was later rescinded and the deposit returned. The credit price on the agreement would have excluded the deposit.

I think the absurdity of the situation is clear to all, it is just really a matter of if section 75 can be made to work in a way that addresses it.

[Sparkie1723]

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

I know I ramble on a LOT……….the questions I have are
Was there ever a debtor supplier agreement in force at all?………PC world let Richard take the computer “ON approval” on the agreement that he paid a “holding “ refundable deposit, and if the laptop did not have the inbuilt modem they said it did would accept the computer back and refund his deposit. Which they eventually did.


Therefore this debtor supplier agreement was rescinded with the agreement of both parties when the above happened


That left the HP agreement……..which he had signed before he left the shop on the approval agreement.
I would imagine that PC world when they filled in the CCA agreement would have included and shown Richards deposit of £50.…if it didn’t …Why


Questions who signed the agreement on behalf of the lender to execute that agreement and …..when.
If it was that very day …and the deposit was shown …when PC world returned Richards deposit the figures on the agreement would be £50 out…..and as I said in my previous ramblings that left the restricted use creditor debtor agreement.


As Richards Counsel is arguing and the last Judge picked up on and asked who had the money and who had the benefit of the goods …….Answer PC world……..PC world would have without any doubt resold that laptop to another customer .
Can anyone see all the other arguments this angle throws up ??
Or am I really rambling now?

Sparkie

[jon1965]

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

I saw a bit of it and the guy seemed a tad out of his depth and ill prepared. Not sure if this is normal. I thought it was only legal aid barristers that were that naff

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

watching now, seems like the Lords are with Rico on the recission point

Hope so, but not so sure, the other side said that they may have "chosen the wrong wood" in using section 75 as opposed to the pre-contractural arguments, lets hope he is not proven correct.

[EXC]

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

Although the judges appeared to have this guy on the ropes in terms of the absurdity of the situation let's not forget that the issues they'll actually be deciding on are whether a valid loan agreement existed with HFC and if so whether the right to rescind was a like claim in sec 75.

[Sparkie1723]

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

As I see...the progressthe last judge was using my twighlight zone questiong.........and is on track to support Richard....Its PC world that owe the money to HFC and responsible for paying it back..........or am I wrong in
trying to pre empt the issue?

Sparkie

[ncf355]

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

Here you go - the DSG brief (sorry not sure of his name) so ncf can see what's happening.

ROFL!

Cheers for that

[pt2537]

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

watching now, seems like the Lords are with Rico on the recission point

[Amethyst]

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

Here you go - the DSG brief (sorry not sure of his name) so ncf can see what's happening.

[enaid]

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

Hi,
Not see, just listen with headphones on work PC

:-)

Must admit, not be able to see the body language etc doesnt help!

Body Language! pmsl they don't bloody blink an eye let alone move

[ncf355]

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

Hi,
Not see, just listen with headphones on work PC

:-)

Must admit, not be able to see the body language etc doesnt help!

[EXC]

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

So you managed to get to see it then ncf?

[ncf355]

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

Hi,

That's what I'd hoped to hear

I must admit, IME I've had several cases I thought were against me and then had a positive result.

Fingers crossed for primarily Richard (deserves to win after such a drawn out, valiant fight) and of course fior the rest of us this would assist

As said, with the combination of yesterdays news, if this goes our way it's going to be a bad year for banks

[Amethyst]

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

Or what EXC said