Thread: legal reasoning behind being able to produce an "original" agreement?

What is the legal thinking behind the whole argument that a creditor must be able to produce the original signed agreement in Court for it to be enforceable? I've read the CCA1974 and it doesnt mention about having to produce an original, therefore leaving it up to the Courts to decide on their own satisfaction whether or not an original document existed.

Do Courts sometimes accept a copy of the agreement as evidence or is there case-law declaring that the Courts can only consider an original document?

Similar Threads:

• Letter To Send after company sent "a blank agreement which you would have signed"
• capquest keep "threatening" me with legal action although they've messed up providing information!!!
• HSBC - Managed Loan "Lost" Agreement - Advice please...
• Buchanan clark+wells "invoice or credit agreement"
• Police change the rules to prevent "legal loopholes"

OK, so basically its up to the Court to decide whether or not it is satisfied that there was a properly executed agreement entered into and the Court may make this decision based solely on the existence of a legible "copy"?

In another thread, the creditor has admitted that it does not hold the "original" signed document but have a copy on microfiche. There was an interesting thread about this issue somewhere and I seemed to recall the consensus being that an original must be produced, but I cannot find the thread now. Would be interesting to have some examples of cases on this issue or direction from the good Professor Goode

Certainly, the issue of forged signatures could be a possible defence if the creditor cannot produce an original but its a very weak argument to be relying on IMO.

You can always prepare several "copys" for the court to demonstrate how easy forgury is, (if you have had a "copy" in reply to your CCA that is) like the three i have for a problem of mine, one in my name, one in my OH,s name and one in hers with totaly differant dates and account numbers as the alledged acount would be the second she had with "that " company

whith all three in front of you , you would not be able to say which was real

And it wasnt actually very hard to do

Originally Posted by johndeevoy

The problem with this approach is that rather than winning on a loophole or technicallity you would have to tell lies to the Judge. A good Judge will ask "so you did not ever sign any agreement with this company and you claim this document in front of me is a forgery?"

Balls of steel to say "Yes your honour" to that one.

Not really as she can say she did sign "an" agreemant, Still doesnt prove it was "that copy" of the agreemant she signed whith that account number

I don't follow your logic, you are going to admit you signed an agreement, "but just not that one your honour"? And what if the Judge questioned you about the differences between what you signed and what he has in front of him. Surely there must be differences you are aware of to claim that you signed an agreement "but not that one".

Sorry, but have you been to Court with this already or it is something you plan to do? Good luck with it, cos 100% of Judges in my jurisdiction would be very annoyed at this type of defence, it wouldn't stand a hope in hell to be honest.

Anyone got anything better than to try and convince the Court that a copy of the agreement is a forgery?

So what your saying is proof is not with the claiment to prove the contract exists and what its contents where

Admitting you signed "something" doesnt prove what you signed, it doesnt make what you signed complient

Ok im probebly wrong, but not in my logic

And i believe that was the point behind this thread, a copy is not proof as it can be tampered with, that is not saying it has, but it could be, that was the point behind my little exerscise, to see how easy that would be, and it was scaringly easy.

so the only way to remove doubt is to produce the origanal, but i know from reading on here i know the courts dont follow that logic, and if i tried to demonstrate how easy it would be to alter that evidence presented before a judge by the claiment to validate that point, you say that would just anger him?

So the claiment can print anything they want off, add what terms and conditions they want and its just tough, as the court will accept that as the contract that was signed?

Then there is no point the legaslation being there and i might as well say sod it now and fill in her Bankruptcy papers.

Its not whether money is owed or not that im doing this for im doing it to get them to prove under what terms

I want them to prove that they have a legal right to hassle us for payment and ignore the fact we havnt got the money to pay them due to my OH current health issue

Then MrShed you are correct i have seriously misunderstood things if your comment is true

I have a laser print out of a scan of the front of an agreemant from the OC and the new owners sols with my OH signeture on it, so she doesnt have to admit she signed it its there in black and white if you take that copy as proof

She has truly no idea whether that is a copy of anything she signed or not, but she can say she didnt write it, as its not her handwriting, but the signeture is her,s. So i have a valid reason for doubt, but no proof. Did she sign it or did they use the signeture and details of the previous agreemant she had with them to manufacture it?

But how can anyone prove it either way without produceing the origanel?

But from your reply the fact it is there is as good as an admitance you signed a contract, after all if the judge asked "did you sign it" what is she supposed to say? She can honestly answer she does not know. But if the judge then asks "did you sign any agreemant with this company" She would have to answer yes because she did

So your saying that the claiment is then of the hook, even though it doesnt prove that she signed THAT agreemant which they claim the amount is owing on?

Also the fact terms and conditions refered too in it are missing, because she has no choice but to say she signed an agreemant with that company, is academic, as the claiment is under no further burdon of proof as she has addmited there was a contract signed even though that goes against the CCA act

Im sorry but i cant understand your argument, Im not disagreeing with you or saying your wrong, but dont understand how admitting you signed an agreemant is proof you signed the agreemant the claiment is putting before the court unless it is the origanal

This has troubled me since i recieved that court summons for her, and all your comments have said is there is no way to defend it even though no one has produced an enforceable agreemant to date, which is what i feared

all the judge has to ask is "did you sign any agreemant with this company" to wich nearly everyone on this site with an agreemant that does not conform to a CCA so is unenforceable would have to answer yes so by the comments above its game over

So what is the point of the CCA legaslation?

to be clear debt AVOIDANCE is academic in our situation, because if anyone proves a debt exist, my OH is Insolvent so will have no choice but to file for bankruptcy

The term insolvent is defined as being unable to meet your commitments as and when they fall due.

Unless someone can prove she has a commitmant that she is failing to make as it falls due i can argue she is not insolvent, so does not need to declare Bankruptcy

(And before you say it yes i am stretching the deffenitions to there limits there to justify it, desperate times and all that)

Failing to supply a valid CCA seemed to give me that breathing space I needed to find for her to get well again.

My deffence is on several front (incorrect default, invalid NoA etc) but if a court will take the agreemant as it is as gospel a debt is owed, but not enforceable in law, thats fine by me, i dont mind paying them eventually when things turn round, as long as they cant add anything to the debt, which a CCJ would achieve in a way but unfortunatly thats not an option as im not willng to risk a warrent under one, and i wouldnt put it past any DCA to "manufacture" a sitation to get one.

But im going of topic here The question was "legal reasoning behind being able to produce an "original" agreement?"

My point was because anything else can easily be alterd with technolagy these days as i proved to myself with my litte excerscise so should not be trusted in a court of law. but i think my example gave the wrong idea but was designed to show my point nothing more

But it seems my beliefe in the burdon of proof beyond reasonable doubt is also flawed so that theory is not valid so i will bow out of this thread here.

Originally Posted by MrShed

Burden of prove in civil court is on the balance of the evidence, NOT beyond reasonable doubt.

Thats why my theory was flawed