Egg credit card agreement terminated

[diddydicky]

The Egg problem did not arise because Egg wished to restrict the credit, but because Egg terminated the accounts - that is a completely different situation, and is what all the fuss is about.

 

yes i know- i was putting forward the proposition that PERHAPS their intention WAS to restrict further credit and they mistakenly used the process of TERMINATION in order to do so!!

 

whatever the reason, i contend that irrespective of whether they unwittingly or deliberately intended to terminate the agreements- those people who (again for whatever reason) carried on making monthly payments have (IMO) unwittingly or otherwise- rejected the creditors unlawful attempt to repudiate and the agreements in fact endure

 

the basis for this argument being that faced with an attempt by one party to unlawfully rescind- the performing (or injured party) has TWO choices

 

one is to ignore the attempt and hold the other party to the agreement

 

the other is to say or do some thing or act which demonstrates that the injured party has accepted the unlawful act as releiving him of his continuing obligations under the agreement or contract

 

it would seem to me that as the recipients of the unlawful attempt to terminate have, by their conduct (continuing to perform their part of the agreement) clearly demonstrated that they consider the agreement to still endure- elected the former, rather than the latter option.

Edited March 10, 2010 by diddydicky

[diddydicky]

I do hope that is not directed at me.

 

IMO a credit card is 'forever' as you put it. But with the proviso that either party can end the agreement by mutual consent, or even one party restrict its use by the other. But arbitrarily ending it is a no, no.

 

The lender if he wants can simply advise there is a £0 credit limit. As you say - a prescribed term. But that doesn't end the agreement like Egg did.

 

no "a cagger" means "one who cags" (not directed personally)

[diddydicky]

That is an interesting concept I alluded to earlier. It is not clear just how long an innocent party has to accept a rescission, but a mitigating circumstance could be ignorance of the finer points of consumer and contract law. Egg in effect duped its customer who were less knowledgeable (at the time).

 

Of course ceasing payment is an implicit acceptance in itself.

 

as is the danger of NOT ceasing payment

 

My view on danger, would be that it would be dangerous for the debtor to conduct himself in a way which was inconsistent with his regarding himself as discharged. I'm not satisfied that it is essential for the debtor to be treated as discharged that he must first give express notice of acceptance of the renunciation to the creditor and that without such notice the agreement endures. If the creditor can renounce by conduct why should the debtor be precluded from relying on his own conduct as evidence that he treats himself as discharged? As such I take the view that if the debtor intends to make a payment after renunciation he should say that the payment is exclusively for the purpose of reducing or discharging the arrears which had accumulated up to the time of renunciation. If there are no arrears he would be unwise and in danger of being treated as affirming the contract if he were to make a payment.

[diddydicky]

That is an interesting concept I alluded to earlier. It is not clear just how long an innocent party has to accept a rescission, but a mitigating circumstance could be ignorance of the finer points of consumer and contract law. Egg in effect duped its customers who were less knowledgeable (at the time).

 

Of course ceasing payment is an implicit acceptance in itself.

 

agreed- all i can say is that i am aware of at least one cagger who that did'nt save!!

[diddydicky]

toymaker

 

read the act and not the explanetary notes!!

[diddydicky]

My letter from Egg says

 

"We are ending your Egg Card Agreement - account number xxx"

 

It states that this is being done in accordance with paragraph xx of the agreement

 

further down the page:

"You must continue to pay at least the agreed monthly repayment each month until any debit balance on the account has been repaid in full. The Egg card Agreement continues to apply until the balance is repaid in full."

 

Seems pretty clear that those not pretty competent in various aspects of contract and consumer law would not think they had any choice but to maintain payments.

 

However, that is a secondary argument, only applicable if Egg did not have the right to terminate. If they did have the right, of course we would be obliged to continue payments.

 

what does para XX of the agreement say??

[diddydicky]

"As long as we have sent you any notice required under the Consumer Credit Act 1974"

so the term that they refer to is clearly not appropriate since this relates to terminating in a default situation and following a DN

 

i understand your reluctance with regard to your own case but i note you are saying that clause xx refers to this in the latest agreement

 

but if they are referring to clause xx in the ORIGINAL agreement, or the varied agreement at the time they notified termination, what does THART clause say

 

what i am getting at- is - were they trying to act on a clause which gave them the right to RESTRICT the use of the account

 

in other words as i said before- did they wrongly (for whatever reason) use the TERMINATION when they appear to have intended RESTRICTION

[diddydicky]

toymaker- with respect i think you need to at least make an attempt to read through the CCA 1974 (as amended) and make some sort of fist of understanding the overall effect of the legislation

 

I am all for debate but you clearly are posting (IMO) on stuff you have only half read and are getting confused with using guidance notes on the legislation as overriding the legislation itself.

[diddydicky]

i have come to the conclusion that some people on here are arguing simply for aguing's sake therefore i take my leave from the thread