Four Corners Of The Agreement

[BARFLY]

Hi. I have been in dispute with a creditor for the past two years due to their inability to provide me with a properly executed credit agreement, initially as a result of a section 78 request. They have provided me with an application form, dated and signed in 2005, that lacks any prescribed terms. I have pointed this out to the creditor and various DCAs on numerous occasions and the dispute seems to be in limbo. Every few months a new DCA will try their hand and then disappear. I'm quite happy with this situation. I'm willing to see out my six years. The creditor has failed to draft their credit agreements by the letter of the law and has suffered as a consequence. Pity. However, after the reading through the Dissecting Manchester thread I notice the wording "within the four corners of the agreement" repeating itself. Although the application form the creditor has sent me contains no prescribed terms it does say at the foot of the page to refer to pages 2,3 nad 4 for terms and conditions. Does this mean that the prescribed terms are now within the four corners of the agreement? Should i start to worry?

[Huff&Puff]

No, nothing has changed in that respect. The Manchester judgement only affects what they must send you in respect of a sec 78 request, it does not alter what they need to produce in court. Enforceability is enshrined in both statute, and in House of Lords precedents, so that is secure enough

[BARFLY]

Thanks Huff. So to clarify, for an agreement to be enforceable the prescribed terms need to be on the signature page, even if the signature page infers that the they will be within the terms and conditions on page 2, 3 etc.?

[charlie*]

this keeps on cropping up... maybe someone should go and bang on

Judge wassisname's dorr one night and ask him to visit CAG and

explain in plain unambiguous English, just what four corners means.

 

Just one of my many thoughts (bearing in mind as many have seen from some of my posts that I'm losing my marbles).... the statement to me seems to say that.... the prescibed terms must be within the four corners of the signature agreement.....

 

BUT, hang on a mo.... most agreements that we sign are not agreements,

they're application forms.

 

Comments???

[BARFLY]

It is ambiguous. Like you say, is it the four corners of the signature page, or the four corners of a document that refers to and contains the terms and conditions.

[B3rty]

Thanks Huff. So to clarify, for an agreement to be enforceable the prescribed terms need to be on the signature page, even if the signature page infers that the they will be within the terms and conditions on page 2, 3 etc

 

Not quite right as this only came in with the 2004 amendment of SI 1983 1553 that applied after May 2005 agreements so before that it was a list of prescribed terms and the signatures but nothing about order.

 

However....I have convinced a judge in court that this applied to a pre 2005 agreement and he found for me because the barristers case was based on a separate T&C agreement and he didn't produce any other argument to save his case as that one was easily blown out the water...

 

Its worth remembering that rules are there for us to twist as well and an uniformed judge isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[Bigdebtor]

I think I am being a bit thick - but can anyone clarify the "4 corners" a bit more? If the prescribed terms are on Page 1 of 3 and the signature is on a separate Page 3 of 3 does this mean either the signature or the prescribed terms are not in the "4 corners"?

 

I understand that since Manchester last month the T&C's are allowed to be on a separate document if referred to in the 4 corners.

 

BD

[Huff&Puff]

My understanding is that "within the 4 corners" means to be clearly and demonstrably contained in part of the same document. In other words, the prescribed terms could be on the back of the same sheet of paper, but they cannot be on a completely separate document that is merely referred to on the document that is signed. If I'm wrong about that then I hope another Cagger will correct me.

[Bigdebtor]

I guess it depends on what is a defined as a "document". I have an RBS/Direct Line agreement which goes on to a 2nd physically completely separate page - with the Prescribed Terms on Page 1 of 3, other terms on the reverse (Page 2 of 3) and the signature on the completely physically separate Page 3 of 3 - although all 3 pages have the same Agreement No. shown on each.

 

Does this meet the "4 corners" requirements?

 

BD

[Huff&Puff]

In my opinion, that probably would be, the pages are clearly numbered, and presumably would all be printed on the same paper if the originals are produced. What a lot of creditors seem to like to do though, is to pretend that any old terms and conditions sheets that they can dig up are part of the same document, which is a very different situation.

[baileyboy]

A document can have 1, 2, 5, 30 pages and still be a single document and any prescribed terms still within the 4 corners if they are on page 1 or page 30.

Its down to the creditor (I would suggest) to prove to the judge that the prescribed terms in a seperate t & c's are in fact part of the same document.

[Bigdebtor]

Thanks H&P (do you make biscuits?)

 

I thought that was the case and it looks as if all 3 pages of the 4 corner agreement are kosher.

 

However I know the other T&C's ( but not any of the prescribed terms) RBS have produced - which are just referred to on Pages 1 and 3 - are NOT the ones that applied to the original agreement. If they don't or can't supply these original T&C's does that make the agreement unenforceable - or would that only be the case if the PT's were in the referred (missing/wrong set of) T&C's ?

 

BD

[B3rty]

Pre 2005 the prescribed terms had to form part of the signature doc but not before the signature. this was changed in 2004 when 1553 was amended by 1482 which gave the order (Form & Content)and stated that the terms must come between the parties and the signature ...this came in from May 2005 agreements

 

However Waksman is saying that if the signature page refers to PTs and these are part of the signature document i.e in a booklet where the application is torn out and then posted so you are left with the PTs then this is OK.

 

The Carey application seemed to be pages printed out prior to her signing which is a bit of a peach for this judgement.

 

Should the OC take you to court they would have to prove in all probability that their normal procedure is for them to produce complaint documents ..this would involve a witness statement from someone to say all their applications had the prescribed terms as part of the signature documents

 

We all know this isn't the case so we would have to prove it wasn't and this could involve cross examining the witness and maybe producing sample copies of non compliment agreements..

 

However the big win from Carey is reg 7 where they need to produce the original copy agreement for s.78 requests where the agreement has been varied as I don't think many will be able to do that...also where an account has been sold on as the further it gets from the OC the harder it would be to produce such a WS.

 

Carey says that if they don't comply with the s.78 request they can't enforce ( litigate)

[Bigdebtor]

To clarify - the Direct Line Loan Agreement seems to have all PRESCRIBED terms within the original 3 page document - BUT I do not believe the correct copy of the OTHER T&C's referred to in these 3 pages have been supplied - are these VITAL for enforecability - or is it only the prescribed terms that must be available for enforcement?

 

BD

[BARFLY]

Uhm. My agreement is dated 12th May 2005. It contains no prescribed terms on the front signature page and is described across the top as an application. However, the footer states to return the page together with the terms and conditions on pages 2, 3, and 4. Would this be enforceable? Does the requirement for the prescribed terms to be between the parties and the signature start from 1st May 2005?

[Huff&Puff]

To clarify - the Direct Line Loan Agreement seems to have all PRESCRIBED terms within the original 3 page document - BUT I do not believe the correct copy of the OTHER T&C's referred to in these 3 pages have been supplied - are these VITAL for enforecability - or is it only the prescribed terms that must be available for enforcement?

 

BD

 

I don't believe they are vital for enforceability. But you re entitled to a copy of the original T&Cs as part of the CCA request. I think you still have a valid dispute if trhey haven't given them to you, which in itself is an absolute defence againt court action. It's all clutching t straws a bit though, perhaps looking at the Default notice and Termination notice might be more fruitful.

[Huff&Puff]

Uhm. My agreement is dated 12th May 2005. It contains no prescribed terms on the front signature page and is described across the top as an application. However, the footer states to return the page together with the terms and conditions on pages 2, 3, and 4. Would this be enforceable? Does the requirement for the prescribed terms to be between the parties and the signature start from 1st May 2005?

 

 

I wpould say that is almost certainly not enforceable. It would be best to post it here, with all your details removed, so that we can have a look.

[B3rty]

Came in 31st May 2005...so until this time PTs and signature could be where they liked as long as they were together in the same doc

[BARFLY]

Damn. Might be enforceable, then. Was always under the impression everything needed to be on the same page. So even though it states "application" if it clearly states that the terms and conditions are on pages 1,2,3 etc it is enforceable?

[patrickq1]

Four corners rule Definition | Definition of Four corners rule at

[BARFLY]

"appears to be complete"...so referring to terms and conditions on page 1,2 etc would seem to satisfy that. Could have sworn that i've read somewhere on here that the prescribed terms had to be on the signature page, even before May 2005! on the plus side the OC has done nothing for two years and only ever provided page 1 of the application - not page 2,3 etc. that contains the terms and conditions and presumeably the prescribed terms. fingers crossed:|

[OnMyWayOut]

Looks like an American definition, probably not the same thing at all.

[Huff&Puff]

Yes, that is US law

[charlie*]

why should an English judge use and American legal expression, I wonder?

[B3rty]

Are you referring to Lord Justice Tuckey in Wilson V Hurstanger?

 

33. In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that,

as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum

terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal

advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four

corners of the agreement.