Message For Teaboy

[teaboy2]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Coming from a man that refuses to back up his statements, believes a LBA can be used as DN and is from the same man that famously stated on this forum, at Celestine, that he is never wrong. Makes your statement above laughable at best.

You simply won't back up your statement because your not able too or don't know what to back it up with and are now trying to wriggle out of it by trying to turn the tables on me. Sorry but thats pathetic.

Oh and for the record, when am wrong i hold my hands up and admit i was as others may tell you - But you sir have not provided anything other than your own words based on your own interpretation to back your arguments and therefore have not provided anything concrete that would prove am incorrect.

And by the way when you contact a creditor to discuss making lower repayments they will at their discretion extend the duration of the loan, to say "When you ask a creditor if you can make lower payments on a fixed sum loan, you go into default." is misleading and complete nonsense, because your assuming the debtor will or has defaulted, when they may well still meet the repayments even if the creditor refuses to extend the loan and accept lower repayments. you simply can not default on a loan just by asking your creditor if you can make lower repayments.

Re: Message For Teaboy

In other words, your not willing to back up what you stated when i challenged you. I guess thats one way of proving to others that people should not take your word for it. I personally think you stated the above purely because your not able to back up what you stated. As i see no other real reason as to why you should be so reluctant to do so.

No TB it means that i think you are immune to logic and a lost cause, you will never learn because you do not know how to admit you are wrong.

D

[teaboy2]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Well this s millis thread so I will explain your errors to him if he wishes

D

In other words, your not willing to back up what you stated when i challenged you. I guess thats one way of proving to others that people should not take your word for it. I personally think you stated the above purely because your not able to back up what you stated. As i see no other real reason as to why you should be so reluctant to do so.

Re: Message For Teaboy

Well this s millis thread so I will explain your errors to him if he wishes

D

Re: Message For Teaboy

Well congratulations DavyB or PeterBard (if you are one and the same as i suspect) you know how to avoid arguements and how to avoid backing up your own statements by nitpicking and attempting to twist peoples words. Now given you yourself counted 4 and as their are only 4 case laws mentioned, then am pretty certain that it would be all 4 case laws that you need to back up your statement on them being inappropriate, by explaining why you think they are inappropriate for each one.

Your the one that said case law above was inapproriate you did not state which ones or how many! i has asked you to tell us why they are, you in return ask me which case law i am referring to. Well i referred to the case law that you seem to think is inappropriate, i can not read your mind and see exactly which ones you are referring to as inapproriate our know if you were referring to them all or just 1 or 2. Your clearly attempting to avoid complying with my request. Just like you like to avoid parts of what is stated by others, when you don't have an answer to argue back against it.

So come on, you say they are miss used, and not appropriate. So back up your statement with some facts instead of nitpicking and/or twisting peoples words to avoid answering, because i and hundreds of thousands if not millions of people that have used said stated case law and have stated it when giving advice, would sure love to know why you think it should not be used anymore.



Did i say anything about them being variable, no i didn't. When you ask a creditor if you can make lower repayments, do you sign a new agreement - Nope. They simply extend the repayment schedule. When you wish to make early repayment do you sign a new agreement? Nope, because your entitled to make early repayment under the terms of the contract, such terms may even include extending the loan period. Oh and yes repayment details can be changed, as you may need to update your bank details or card details. Total credit can not be changed without their being a new agreement unless their is credit limit which can be changed such as for credit cards, during the duration of the agreement.

When you ask a creditor if you can make lower payments on a fixed sum loan, you go into default, i am afraid, the creditor may chose not to enforce but you are in default of your original agreement.

Very very basic stuff this TB

D

[teaboy2]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Well congratulations DavyB or PeterBard (if you are one and the same as i suspect) you know how to avoid arguements and how to avoid backing up your own statements by nitpicking and attempting to twist peoples words. Now given you yourself counted 4 and as their are only 4 case laws mentioned, then am pretty certain that it would be all 4 case laws that you need to back up your statement on them being inappropriate, by explaining why you think they are inappropriate for each one.

Your the one that said case law above was inapproriate you did not state which ones or how many! i has asked you to tell us why they are, you in return ask me which case law i am referring to. Well i referred to the case law that you seem to think is inappropriate, i can not read your mind and see exactly which ones you are referring to as inapproriate our know if you were referring to them all or just 1 or 2. Your clearly attempting to avoid complying with my request. Just like you like to avoid parts of what is stated by others, when you don't have an answer to argue back against it.

So come on, you say they are miss used, and not appropriate. So back up your statement with some facts instead of nitpicking and/or twisting peoples words to avoid answering, because i and hundreds of thousands if not millions of people that have used said stated case law and have stated it when giving advice, would sure love to know why you think it should not be used anymore.

I see, so the prescribed terms on the agreement,you know repayment details total credit, etc, are they variable also.

I think i begin to see where you are coming from, the terms of the agreement have nothing to do with the agreement.

Interesting

D

Did i say anything about them being variable, no i didn't. When you ask a creditor if you can make lower repayments, do you sign a new agreement - Nope. They simply extend the repayment schedule. When you wish to make early repayment do you sign a new agreement? Nope, because your entitled to make early repayment under the terms of the contract, such terms may even include extending the loan period. Oh and yes repayment details can be changed, as you may need to update your bank details or card details. Total credit can not be changed without their being a new agreement unless their is credit limit which can be changed such as for credit cards, during the duration of the agreement.

Re: Message For Teaboy

Sorry wrong thread

Re: Message For Teaboy

How about all of them, you say they are miss used, and not appropriate. So back up your statement with some facts, because i and hundreds of thousands if not millions of people that have used said stated case law and have stated it when giving advice, would sure love to know why you think it should not be used anymore. Especially when it supports the need for a valid DN and/or Termination notice.

You are going to have to narrow it down for me, i counted four that ere inappropriate in the context you put them in.

D

Re: Message For Teaboy

I see, so the prescribed terms on the agreement,you know repayment details total credit, etc, are they variable also.

I think i begin to see where you are coming from, the terms of the agreement have nothing to do with the agreement.

Interesting

D

[teaboy2]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Yes i keep being mistaken for someone else, i remember peterbard though from CAG, very clever fella.

Sorry which piece off misused case law do you wish to discuss?

D

How about all of them, you say they are miss used, and not appropriate. So back up your statement with some facts, because i and hundreds of thousands if not millions of people that have used said stated case law and have stated it when giving advice, would sure love to know why you think it should not be used anymore. Especially when it supports the need for a valid DN and/or Termination notice.

[teaboy2]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Could you explain this for me, i am unsure what is meant.

D

Its not rocket science. Its pretty clear that i was pointing out that the loan duration was just a term in the contract itself but not the actual duration of the agreement, as the agreement remains in place until the debt is repaid in full or has been terminated by means of section 87(1) or section 98. If as you say an agreement terminates at the end of the loan duration then the creditor would not be able to enact the terms under the same agreement in order to enforce the debt as a result of the debtor defaulting on the repayment of the loan. Because if the agreement was terminated at the end of the loan period, then so would be the term(s) under the agreement that allows the creditor to enforce the debt - It would also make any DN issued invalid as you can not issue a DN on an agreement that has already been terminated, if you can not issue a VALID DN then the creditor is not entitled to enforce the debt in court.

Like i said before, if what you are saying was true, then why on earth are creditors not waiting for the loan period to expire on loan agreements where the debtor has defaulted? Why is it they still issue default notices when a debtor has only missed the last payment or last few payments? Why is it default notices are still being issued by creditors despite the fact the loan duration has already past? I'll tell you why, its because a loan can not terminate of be terminated when the debtor is in default, unless the creditor enacts section 87 (1) and the debtor fails to comply, which then and only then, entitles the creditor to terminate!

Re: Message For Teaboy

Yes i keep being mistaken for someone else, i remember peterbard though from CAG, very clever fella.

Sorry which piece off misused case law do you wish to discuss?

D

[teaboy2]

Re: Message For Teaboy

Hi sorry regarding this.

The blue writing has it right.
Rescission of a contract requires both parties to be returned to a position that they would have been in if te contract had not been made, since the creditor has already performed, the only way to rescind the agreement would be to return his money.

Also correct about the DN it would simply be a notice of intended action issueable at any time.

The case law references quoted in red are inappropriate to say the least, sorry whoever wrote them.

D

Those case references have been used time and time again successfully by many people on consumer forums.

You know what Davyb, all you have said in the last couple of days, flies directly in the face of the advice that has been given out millions of times on all consumer forums for years. You also remind me of another user that used to go by the name PeterBard, whom i also had debates with, who would argue points but not provide anything concrete to back up his points, such as case law or legislation. You say above that the relevant case Law quoted is not appropriate, yet you fail to state why or provide anything that would show the stated case law was no longer appropriate. Do you really believe that just because you say it is people should take you word for it!!

Your right about both parties being returned to their original positions under recession of contract, however that does not apply when the it is unlawful rescission (or unlawful repudation if you prefer) as for it to be lawful rescission of contract both/all parties to the contract must agree to it. If their was no such mutual consent to the recission then its unlawful and as such the party who rescinded the agreement is not entitled to being returned to their original position prior to the contract being signed.

Re: Message For Teaboy

Yes i agree that the loan duration is a term of the agreement, and is part of the bargin. However its is not the duration of the agreement itself, its simply the duration and schedule as to when the loan under the agreement is due to be repaid.

Could you explain this for me, i am unsure what is meant.

D

Re: Message For Teaboy

Sorry you are loosing me again, are you talking about a modifieng agreement were both parties agree to a new contract.

Yes this is a possibility, but it is not what is being discussed here is it?

The creditor would have to give notice before he went to court, if that is what you mean?

D