Andrew 1 , thank you someone else is thinking like me and has the same questions. You can not say the judge was penalising the Rankines, he is a JUDGE and has stated his interpretation of the LAW. That interpretation clearly muddy the water for credit card holders, and indeed is a point of law to which any party could rely to the detriment of a card holder. It would be great to have a technical response to my above statement and in the light of which a purposeful response to mitzi 50 application/agreements......

Hi, i read this at para 29 of the Rankines v American express........... A credit card issuer is required to provide three copies of agreement to a borrower. The first copy (which is set out as an application form) is signed by the borrower and sent to the lender. The borrower is given, with this application copy, a copy to keep (in accordance with the requirements of section 62 of the Act. This is the requirement to provide a copy of the unexecuted agreement (unexecuted because at that stage it has not been accepted or signed by the lender). When the agreement is executed a credit card is sent out, and usually this is attached to the "card carrier" copy of the agreement. This copy has to be sent to the borrower by virtue of section 63(4) of the Act and this is the executed copy. The requirement for such documents to be "true copies" is set out in regulation 3(1) of the Consumer Credit (Regulation 3(2) provides that the lender can omit from this document any signature and/or signature box, so although the card carrier is the executed copy, it does not have to (and invariably will not) bear the parties signatures. Not sure where that fits in with your credit card agreements/applications?

Why does the act state both parties should sign the agreement, and various sites state that for an agreement to enforceable it should be signed by both parties, and yet the Rankine judge states this need not be the case and in fact in most cases is not because of the automated system of producing credit cards.

If you read the Rankine decsion at para 29 the Judge states "the executed copy does not have to have to... bear the parties signatures" !!! ?

We are asking a sensible question! The Rankine name is irrelevant. What is at question is the Judge decsion at para 29 which conflicts with the statement made by British consumer forum. We all know about the Rankines and have our own opinions.

Hi, can anybody help. We are trying to check our various agreements. British consumer Forum says for the agreement to be enforceable it must contain signitures of both creditor and debtor. But in reading the "Basil Rankine v American express" at para 29 we are confused!! The agreements we have received do not have all the partys signatures.