Is this Barclays agreement enforceable?

[shinobi101]

Barclays said in a letter that they don't have a copy because it was an "internet application" (from 2005)

 

My argument is that they insisted the contract be printed and returned, so therefore it is a paper contract and they must have a copy in order to enforce it.

 

I also thought that because the prescribed terms don't appear on the signature page that would make it unenforceable. The Carey case has got me worried now. Although I'd still argue no contract - no money.

 

Thanks in advance for any help on this.

Loan20k.pdf

[FlyboyAgain]

You're right, AFAIU, about the PTs/Signature although I think, for internet apps, a ticked boxed was suffcient to be seen as a signature.

 

That said, I've no personal experience on net apps so best wait for those more knowledgeable to come along.

[shinobi101]

bump

[Series3]

I think after 2004 a tick in a box counts as a signature for on-line apps.

I'll see if I can find a link for you.

They will probably send some screen dumps.

[shinobi101]

That could cause me some problems:( The reason I thought I was safe with this is that they insisted that a paper contract be signed and returned before they would release the money. So even though I applied online, there was still a paper contract. Does that change anything?

 

If this one is enforceable should I look at something like an IVA or bankruptcy? Both are really bad, but I don't want to spend 20 years or more paying this off:confused:

[diddydicky]

that contract looks watertight to me!

[shinobi101]

that contract looks watertight to me!

 

If they sue me can I still insist that they produce the original?

 

They say they don't have it, even though it was signed and returned by fax.

 

I did apply on the internet, but had to print, sign and return that contract to get the money. Am I right to say it's a paper contract because they wouldn't part with the money until they received the signed document?

 

Or would their "internet application" story win?

[diddydicky]

well yes of course they need to produce the original in court ( they SHOULD produce the original in court,

 

if they do not have the signed agreement they are on a sticky wicket

[dundeelaw]

You can argue that it is not an executed agreement as although you have signed it, it has to be signed in person by the lender. It has the name of the lender (manager) but their signature has to be there for the lender to follow the agreement. You can say that, since they did not sign the agreement and cannot produce a copy of it, the money they paid you was a gift, a prize, ???? maybe you have a few more suggestions. You can say that after you signed it, they changed their minds and never executed the agreement.

 

To be bound by any contarct in law, it has to be signed by at least 2 parties.

[shinobi101]

well yes of course they need to produce the original in court ( they SHOULD produce the original in court,

 

if they do not have the signed agreement they are on a sticky wicket

 

Since they don't seem to be able to at the moment, I should be able to get them to put that on hold (hopefully forever!). If that works I might be able to pay the others.