more secrets about assignment

[Vulture_Bank]

http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-928436-9.pdf

 

"a link says what a thousand words can't say"

 

some very very interesting observations here !

 

recommend you save the document to disc

see especially

1.17

1.21

1.22

[maybelline]

thanks Vulture Bank, very interesting:)

[Jeff2000]

Very interesting indeed!!!

[Seahorse]

AHA. Curlyben, if you are reading.....

 

THIS is the book I was after.!!!!!!

[pt2537]

seahorse

 

have you a copy of Halsburys Laws of Englands Choses in action?

 

pm me an email address and i will send you a copy, then you will have the book your after, trust me

 

no disrespect to what has been posted but i have a complete law library and also have a lot of online and PDF documents which are used by barristers and solicitors and are no readily available on the net:D

[andrew1]

seahorse

 

have you a copy of Halsburys Laws of Englands Choses in action?

 

pm me an email address and i will send you a copy, then you will have the book your after, trust me:D

 

..but he's Scottish ? Don't give him our English secrets !!

[Seahorse]

Ye cheeky wummun!!!!!!

 

PM heading your way. Cheers, PT.

[pt2537]

may be worth checking your inbox about now, hope you find it useful

[Seahorse]

Cheers. It'll be put to good use.

[pt2537]

i think it already has many times:D

 

but i hope you find it useful,

 

 

regards

paul

[Vulture_Bank]

http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/Assigning%20a%20debt%20or%20contract%20Article.htm

 

 

"The burden of a contract cannot be assigned. It is therefore necessary to novate, rather

than assign, certain contracts. Novation is, in effect, the rescission of one contract and the

substitution of a new contract in which the same acts are to be performed but by different parties."

[andrew1]

Assigning A Debt Or Benefit Of Contract? - Information Technology Law Articles and News - Lawdit Reading Room

 

 

"The burden of a contract cannot be assigned. It is therefore necessary to novate, rather

than assign, certain contracts. Novation is, in effect, the rescission of one contract and the

substitution of a new contract in which the same acts are to be performed but by different parties."

 

When they quote the word 'burden' of a contract, do they mean the duties of the contracts, but not the rightsto the spoils of the cash? Does this take us back into Cabot territory where they state they buy the rights but not the duties under the Law of Property Act 1925?

 

 

Sarah

[pt2537]

ah the old s136 LoP argument, i love it when they try that rubbish, its easy to blow that one out of the water and leave em squirming

[andrew1]

ah the old s136 LoP argument, i love it when they try that rubbish, its easy to blow that one out of the water and leave em squirming

 

Go on then...

[Curlyben]

Legal assignments of things in action.- (1) Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice-

(a)

the legal right to such debt or thing in action;

(b)

all legal and other remedies for the same; and

©

the power to give a good discharge for the same without the concurrence of the assignor:

Provided that, if the debtor, trustee or other person liable in respect of such debt or thing in action has notice-

(a)

that the assignment is disputed by the assignor or any person claiming under him; or

(b)

of any other opposing or conflicting claims to such debt or thing in action;

 

 

Ooops think they shot themselves in the foot there.

 

Now under this Act this is an ABSOLUTE assignment so they have been sold ALL the rights AND duties !!

This is their admission that they know that they don't have a leg to stand on, yet they are trying to bluff it out.

 

 

Sooooo as they are now the legal owners of the complete debt CCA74 s77-79 comes into force.

 

This is a Cabot tactic with the rights but not the duties cobblers.

 

The creditor under a regulated agreement for fixed sum credit, within the

prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and

payment of a fee of 15 new pence, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed

agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a

statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information

to which it is practicable for him to refer,—

(a) the total sum paid under the agreement by the debtor;

(b) the total sum which has become payable under the agreement by the debtor but

remains unpaid, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the

date when each became due: and

© the total sum which is to became payable under the agreement by the debtor,

and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date, or mode of

determining the date, when each becomes due.

 

Now s77-79 refer to the "creditor", this term is defined in s189.

“ creditor “ means the person providing credit under a consumer credit agreement or

the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by

assignment or operation of law, and in relation to a prospective consumer credit

agreement, includes the prospective creditor;

Same applies to s78 and s79 aswell.

 

Now if they are saying that they aren't the creditor as defined by the Act the you cannot possibly be the debtor

“ debtor “ means the individual receiving credit under a consumer credit agreement or

the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by

assignment or operation of law, and in relation to a prospective consumer credit

agreement includes the prospective debtor;

Therefore there is NO debt to pay.

 

Hopefully this clears a few things up.

[pt2537]

Thanks ben,

 

Andrew1 this is confirmed within Halsburys so no matter what nonsense they try to spout they cant get around that so game over

 

 

regards

paul

[callumsgran]

Ye cheeky wummun!!!!!!

 

PM heading your way. Cheers, PT.

 

Hey ive met andrew1 and let me tell you he is all man!!!

[andrew1]

Thank you to you both - helps me sleep a little better now it's been explained so eloquently - Ken will love it!

[andrew1]

Hey ive met andrew1 and let me tell you he is all man!!!

 

Not me matey must have been another - haven't you seen my Avatar? - spitting image.

[callumsgran]

Well you've had a very convincing sex change then

 

Someone introduced them self to me at the CAG meet last December as andrew1 and he was definitely a man!

[andrew1]

Well you've had a very convincing sex change then

 

Someone introduced them self to me at the CAG meet last December as andrew1 and he was definitely a man!

 

must have been a real andrew - I'm a real something else!

[make them aktiv runners]

When they quote the word 'burden' of a contract, do they mean the duties of the contracts, but not the rightsto the spoils of the cash? Does this take us back into Cabot territory where they state they buy the rights but not the duties under the Law of Property Act 1925?

 

 

Sarah

 

Ben and Paul have answered the assignment part. Andrew you may remember me bringing up Novation sometime ago and probably know the answer, but for the benefit of others:

 

Novation is more of an American thing (per Richard Spud). Novation can only occur with debtors agreement (again RS). The burdens as mentioned above, in contract law actually mean the duties of the debtor (you cannot assign a debt of yours to another person), whereas the rights relate to the creditor. Just to complicate it little more within "rights" creditors also have some duties, and equally within "burdens" debtors also have some rights.

 

Dear old Aktiv Kapital have told Moonhawk that they are not the creditor, nor are they an agent, so bless they have shot themselves admitting to having no rights under the CCA whatsoever.

[Seahorse]

I have actually invited Cabot to explain this line away, and was just met with deafening silence. I've rather more openly asked in my blog why OC's are "burdening" the likes of Cabot with so-called legitimate debts, when they know FULL WELL that the OC's are stitching them up with accounts made up of recoverable charges. At the very least.

 

Barclaycard - What have they done? at Cabot Financial Blog

[Seahorse]

must have been a real andrew - I'm a real something else!

 

A real pain in the derriere sometimes.

 

Actually, I HAVE met the real Sarah. And she's a little inaccurate when she says her avatar reveals all. . . Her nose is DEFINITELY not that big.

 

(OW, OW!! Stop hitting me wummmun!!! )

[Vulture_Bank]

just to ask an innocent question

 

does the Companies Act 1985, overide the consumer credit act 1974 ??