Jump to content


The intended meaning of S87(1)(b)


gh2008
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4762 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Although I have quoted from a post by Peter I would also welcome answers from others who may also recollect the same post(s) and who may confirm my logic or point out any flaws in it.

 

I seem to remember Peter saying the Debtor could only terminate by settling the outstanding liabilities at that time. Do I remember correctly?

No If the debtor teminates all liabilities become due.if he can pay them fine, if not the court is free to enforce the agreement. The agrement being rescinded(de futuro) is an equitable remedy that can be applied by the court, it returns both parties to the state when the agreement was terminated(all sums due up to that time are liable).There is nothing stopping the debtor fron terminating just because he cannot repay the loan but he does loose his entitlement to repay under the terms of the agreement if he does

 

If so, surely that means that it is not sufficient for the Debtor just to say to the Creditor "I terminate" or even "I accept your offer to terminate".

 

Surely unless the Debtor pays up the outstanding liabilities at the same time as exercising the Debtor's right to terminate then the agreement or contract endures?

 

See above

If so, then, if the agreement endures, surely the Debtor still has the right to continue to make monthly payments until and unless the Creditor correctly issues a compliant DN followed in the right time scale by a complaint TN?

 

See above

If the answers to these questions is YES then surely if it is accepted (by a court) in such circumstances that the agreement has been terminated, then that termination must, by definition, be a UNILATERAL termination by the CREDITOR - as the Debtor could not terminate it before paying off the liabilities?

 

The answer is not yes if you right it would ass you say be a creitor only termination, if this was the case there could be no enforcement because the default was bad.

If the creditor terminates in such circumstances, (irrespective of whether the Debtor was in default or not - provided the Creditor has not properly followed the laid down procedures by issuing a correct and totally compliant DN followed by a TN in the correct timescales) then surely the Creditor loses all rights to any outstanding liabilities of the Debtor?

 

If a creditor contracturaly terminates an agrement the issuance of a bad DN the agreement is terminated.The creditor cannot enforce of course because the default was ineffective,

There is nothing stoppong the creditor issuing a new sefault.

If so, then surely there is no way that the Creditor could side step this well-documented provision and terminate and demand full and immediate payment of all outstanding liabilities?

No he cannot terminate on the breach of the debtor simply by terminating the agreement, in a breach situation an effective DN would have had to be served prior to enforcement

 

 

BD

 

PS - Nice to see these issues being discussed in a somewhat more civilised manner!

 

Given the chance i much preffer it

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi BD

 

it was PB who was suggesting that the letter from a debtor (whether or not accepting what the creditor had or had not done...amounted to them terminating the agreement

 

It was pumpkin head i thiunk wasnt it and the dj

 

it was myself that pointed out that this was not possible unless the debtor first repaid everything owed to the creditor - and that no creditor would be mug enough to accept the termination and then try to get their money back off the debtor

 

Yes it was you were incorrect

This is a common law principle but for us pumpkin heads judjument shoud suffice

 

My comment was as usual not accepted - "because this one particular judge" in a county court - decided otherwise

 

at the time i did not have an MBNA agreement lying around (all creditors termination clauses are much of a muchness to be honest)

 

however here is a typical MBNA contractual termination clause

 

QUOTE

 

Either of us may terminate this agreement by giving written notice to the other but this will only be effective once all cards issued on your account have been returned and destroyed and all liabilities under this agreement paid

 

So f this is true the agrement is not terminated even afterthe judgement but when the judgemnt debt is settled.

WOW no that really is news.Not only that but the court is enforning an untminated agreement wonder if they know

UNQUOTE

 

it can be seem that no termination from a debtor is "effective" until all liabilities have been paid

 

in the case of PH the other day- yet another misdirection by the numpty judge

 

however, do stand by for the response- it should be interesting!

 

 

I hope the response will interest you

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I refer to your answers to BD

 

I have provided authority for the proposition that the contractual clause CLEARLY states that UNTIL the debtor has repaid ALL liabilities to the creditor- the termination is NOT effective

 

and i have also stated that you will find the same or similarly worded clause in every creditors contractual termination clause

 

At the time that the debtor makes this alleged termination- the parties are nowhere near a courthouse

 

Please provide authority for your proposition that a court can change the terms and conditions of an agreement- against the wishes of one of the parties to it

 

In fact, as the debtors alleged termination of the agreement did not become "Effective" by virtue of his failing to first repay all liabilities- please explain how the creditor could even get the debtor before a court for "Not" terminating the agreement!

 

please provide the authority or post an alternative creditors clause(any creditor will do) in an agreement which varies the term "until the debtor has repaid all liabilites" to something along the lines you have stated -

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BD

 

it was PB who was suggesting that the letter from a debtor (whether or not accepting what the creditor had or had not done...amounted to them terminating the agreement

 

It was pumpkin head i thiunk wasnt it and the dj

 

No peter it was definately YOU on the PH thread several times in fact

 

 

it was myself that pointed out that this was not possible unless the debtor first repaid everything owed to the creditor - and that no creditor would be mug enough to accept the termination and then try to get their money back off the debtor

 

Yes it was you were incorrect

This is a common law principle but for us pumpkin heads judjument shoud suffice

 

common law common law? i just posted up the MBNA contractual termination clause from one of their agreements- the clause is regulated (like the rest of the agreement) by the CCA....... not common law

 

why on earth would you claim it to be common law!

 

My comment was as usual not accepted - "because this one particular judge" in a county court - decided otherwise

 

at the time i did not have an MBNA agreement lying around (all creditors termination clauses are much of a muchness to be honest)

 

however here is a typical MBNA contractual termination clause

 

QUOTE

 

Either of us may terminate this agreement by giving written notice to the other but this will only be effective once all cards issued on your account have been returned and destroyed and all liabilities under this agreement paid

 

UNQUOTE

 

So f this is true the agrement is not terminated even afterthe judgement but when the judgemnt debt is settled.

WOW no that really is news.Not only that but the court is enforning an untminated agreement wonder if they know

 

it can be seem that no termination from a debtor is "effective" until all liabilities have been paid

 

in the case of PH the other day- yet another misdirection by the numpty judge

 

however, do stand by for the response- it should be interesting!

Edited by diddydicky
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this should say

 

Either of us may end this agreement by giving written notice to the other but this will only be effective once all cards issued on your account have been returned and destroyed and all liabilities under this agreement paid

 

If the requiirement was that all liabilities have to be settled before either party can terminate as you say this says then the credior would not be able to terminate either which is nonesense.

 

It does not say only on the debtor

 

Post it up lets have a look

 

Peter

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this should say

 

Either of us may end this agreement by giving written notice to the other but this will only be effective once all cards issued on your account have been returned and destroyed and all liabilities under this agreement paid

 

If the requiirement was that all liabilities have to be settled before either party can terminate as you say this says then the credior would not be able to terminate either which is nonesense.

 

It does not say only on the debtor

 

Post it up lets have a look

 

Peter

 

Peter

 

no, i have done my research- and what i have posted is word for word the clause in the MBNA agreement and i used it to back up my proposition

 

 

what you would LIKE it to say and what it DOES say is the difference between your advice being sound or defective- so you ought the check the facts first

 

with respect - why don't YOU do some research and post up an MBNA clause which uses the word END rather than terminate!! in order to validate your claim instead of just picking holes in other peoples research

 

in order to assist you - there are tons of mbna agreement dispute threads knocking around on the forum

 

after all "the letter" you got - did say that it expected posters to publish authority for their propositions and not just try to foist their "opinions" on others

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BD

 

it was PB who was suggesting that the letter from a debtor (whether or not accepting what the creditor had or had not done...amounted to them terminating the agreement

 

It was pumpkin head i thiunk wasnt it and the dj

 

No peter it was definately YOU on the PH thread several times in fact

 

 

 

Well judgement has gone against me today. I am disappointed but not surprised. The DJ was very nice and treated me kindly and said I had fought a valiant battle and that my documents were all in excellent order. In his opinion "
the Defendant's fatal flaw was to accept the repudiation of contract
" meaning that I still owe the remaining balance. I do have right of appeal of course and I am also considering bringing a counter claim for damages caused by the repudiation. I shall take legal advice on that point. The DJ agreed the DN was a travesty. When I get the full judgement I will consider posting it up. He felt my argument was attractive but the fact I accepted the rescission in writing brought matters outside the CCA and into normal laws relating to debt.

NO it was deffinately PH

 

 

 

 

it was myself that pointed out that this was not possible unless the debtor first repaid everything owed to the creditor - and that no creditor would be mug enough to accept the termination and then try to get their money back off the debtor

 

Yes it was you were incorrect

This is a common law principle but for us pumpkin heads judjument shoud suffice

 

NO I AM CORRECT AS THE JUDGEMENTY SHOWED

 

common law common law? i just posted up the MBNA contractual termination clause from one of their agreements- the clause is regulated (like the rest of the agreement) by the CCA....... not common law

 

why on earth would you claim it to be common law!

 

My comment was as usual not accepted - "because this one particular judge" in a county court - decided otherwise

 

at the time i did not have an MBNA agreement lying around (all creditors termination clauses are much of a muchness to be honest)

 

however here is a typical MBNA contractual termination clause

 

QUOTE

 

Either of us may terminate this agreement by giving written notice to the other but this will only be effective once all cards issued on your account have been returned and destroyed and all liabilities under this agreement paid

 

So f this is true the agrement is not terminated even afterthe judgement but when the judgemnt debt is settled.

WOW no that really is news.Not only that but the court is enforning an untminated agreement wonder if they know

UNQUOTE

 

it can be seem that no termination from a debtor is "effective" until all liabilities have been paid

 

in the case of PH the other day- yet another misdirection by the numpty judge

 

however, do stand by for the response- it should be interesting!

 

sorry not read the rest of the post because the whole consept is absurd.

The debtor is of course entitled to end the agrement by making early repayment .

He is also entiled to terminate but if he does all liabilities become due that is what the court said and that is the logical conclusion, yes if the debtor terminates he must pay the liabilites unde the contract,it does not mean that if he cnnot pay them he cannot terminate.He would be in breach and the court would enforce for the money.because he could not pay.

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry not read the rest of the post because the whole consept is absurd.

The debtor is of course entitled to end the agrement by making early repayment .

He is also entiled to terminate but if he does all liabilities become due that is what the court said and that is the logical conclusion, yes if the debtor terminates he must pay the liabilites unde the contract,it does not mean that if he cnnot pay them he cannot terminate.He would be in breach and the court would enforce for the money.because he could not pay.

Peter

 

 

not every judge is right- especially county court judges

 

you wave the judges judgement around like it was the holy grail yet not a few posts ago you were arguing that an agreement is still terminated even if the creditor served a bad DN - totally in the face of an APPEAL COURT ruling (which itself upheld a previous (wilson ) HOUSE OF LORDS RULING that a bad DN = the creditor cannot take the next step

 

It is so so hard not to say what one really feels when debating with someone who just contradicts themselves time after time and does not have the humility to admit when he is wrong!

 

but site rules is site rules so.........

 

Peter.... i disagree!

Link to post
Share on other sites

not every judge is right- especially county court judges

 

you wave the judges judgement around like it was the holy grail yet not a few posts ago you were arguing that an agreement is still terminated even if the creditor served a bad DN - totally in the face of an APPEAL COURT ruling (which itself upheld a previous (wilson ) HOUSE OF LORDS RULING that a bad DN = the creditor cannot take the next step

 

It is so so hard not to say what one really feels when debating with someone who just contradicts themselves time after time and does not have the humility to admit when he is wrong!

 

but site rules is site rules so.........

 

Peter.... i disagree!

 

This is hard work i dont think you actually read any posts othe than your own

 

The creditor cannot teminate after a default, this fully agrees with the high court and everybody else, he cannot take the next step amongst theose is the default termination.

But if the default is defective so is the default temination, the agreement is un altered.

We have ageed that a creditor can terminate an agreement under a contractural clause at any time, so no reason why he cannot after a defective dn,it is the same as before the defective dn was issued, he can not enforce of course because the DN is faulty

 

THis is correct i am affraid the only problem is your inability to undertand it

 

Peter

Edited by Dodgeball

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

no, i have done my research- and what i have posted is word for word the clause in the MBNA agreement and i used it to back up my proposition

 

 

what you would LIKE it to say and what it DOES say is the difference between your advice being sound or defective- so you ought the check the facts first

 

with respect - why don't YOU do some research and post up an MBNA clause which uses the word END rather than terminate!! in order to validate your claim instead of just picking holes in other peoples research

 

in order to assist you - there are tons of mbna agreement dispute threads knocking around on the forum

 

after all "the letter" you got - did say that it expected posters to publish authority for their propositions and not just try to foist their "opinions" on others

 

Quite right so lets see your authority post it up

 

Pete

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite right so lets see your authority post it up

 

Pete

 

Sorry i will use the county court judjement in PHs case and the legislation as my authority.

Now lets see yours

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BD

 

it was PB who was suggesting that the letter from a debtor (whether or not accepting what the creditor had or had not done...amounted to them terminating the agreement

 

It was pumpkin head i thiunk wasnt it and the dj

 

No peter it was definately YOU on the PH thread several times in fact

 

 

it was myself that pointed out that this was not possible unless the debtor first repaid everything owed to the creditor - and that no creditor would be mug enough to accept the termination and then try to get their money back off the debtor

 

Yes it was you were incorrect

This is a common law principle but for us pumpkin heads judjument shoud suffice

 

common law common law? i just posted up the MBNA contractual termination clause from one of their agreements- the clause is regulated (like the rest of the agreement) by the CCA....... not common law

 

NOpe another error a contractural termination clauses like this are not mentioned in the statute it is a contractural clause

why on earth would you claim it to be common law!

 

Because it is

My comment was as usual not accepted - "because this one particular judge" in a county court - decided otherwise

 

at the time i did not have an MBNA agreement lying around (all creditors termination clauses are much of a muchness to be honest)

 

however here is a typical MBNA contractual termination clause

 

QUOTE

 

Either of us may terminate this agreement by giving written notice to the other but this will only be effective once all cards issued on your account have been returned and destroyed and all liabilities under this agreement paid

 

UNQUOTE

 

So f this is true the agrement is not terminated even afterthe judgement but when the judgemnt debt is settled.

WOW no that really is news.Not only that but the court is enforning an untminated agreement wonder if they know

 

it can be seem that no termination from a debtor is "effective" until all liabilities have been paid

 

in the case of PH the other day- yet another misdirection by the numpty judge

 

however, do stand by for the response- it should be interesting!

 

Spotted another error

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please stick to the facts. I have had to unapprove 2 posts, one due to it's offensive content and the other which quoted it.

 

Please stick strictly to the debate without personal comment or abuse. Failure to do so WILL result in moderation. There is no place on CAG for people who cannot abide by the very simple rules.

Edited by caro
typo
The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE Yes good point Unfortunately section 78 says under an agreement and section 87 just says a regulaed agreement,doesnt say an active one.UNQUOTE

 

 

 

the cruelty against animals act refers to Dogs, cats horses-etc ............ it doesnt say "live ones"

 

- but i think everybody knows they are not talking about "dead" ones!

 

THe judge in Rankine thought that the text of section 78 was important enough to rule that the creditor was not obliged to comply because the copntract was no longer under an agreement.

 

He made this distinction not i.

 

Pete

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Shadow.

 

This raises more questions - but moves us forward too....

 

1. I guess it depends on which MBNA agreement is in force whether the Debtor CAN terminate the agreement without repaying the outstanding liabilities?

 

2. If a Debtor signe dthe old MBNA agreement do its original T&C's still apply or could MBNA have enforced the new ones if the agreement was still active and the Debtor contimued to avail himself of the "benefits" of the agreement?

 

3. If the Creditor had issued a dodgy DN and the Debtor had then terminated without repayment then surely the dodgy DN

a) would prevent the Creditor from ENFORCING?

b) would meant the Creditor could NO LONGER raise a correct DN, as the Agreement was terminated before this could happen?

c) would mean a Court would (could?) not force the Debtor to repay anything still outstanding under the Agreement?

d) is it not the case that whilst the "debt" or "liability" would still exist, the Debtor could simply refuse to pay (and after 6 years it would be SB) and the Creditor would be powerless to do anything other than trash the Debtor's Credit File?

 

4. If the answers to 3a) to 3d) are YES then is that not the same outcome as was averred in the long lamented thread started by Pinky69?

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites

not every judge is right- especially county court judges

 

"you wave the judges judgement around like it was the holy grail yet not a few posts ago you were arguing that an agreement is still terminated even if the creditor served a bad DN - totally in the face of an APPEAL COURT ruling (which itself upheld a previous (wilson ) HOUSE OF LORDS RULING that a bad DN = the creditor cannot take the next step"

 

Court judjments ae generally regarded as authority.

AN agreement can be terminated after a faulty DN not a default temintion but by a contractural term.

THis agrees with both the rulings mentioned.

 

 

It is so so hard not to say what one really feels when debating with someone who just contradicts themselves time after time and does not have the humility to admit when he is wrong!

 

I was not wrong on this occaion as the above shows, i wont ask you to appologise but perhaps you should.

 

but site rules is site rules so.........

 

Peter.... i disagree

 

This is your right

as hoping this would be removed but since it hasnt i will have to reply.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Shadow.

 

This raises more questions - but moves us forward too....

 

1. I guess it depends on which MBNA agreement is in force whether the Debtor CAN terminate the agreement without repaying the outstanding liabilities?

 

2. If a Debtor signe dthe old MBNA agreement do its original T&C's still apply or could MBNA have enforced the new ones if the agreement was still active and the Debtor contimued to avail himself of the "benefits" of the agreement?

 

3. If the Creditor had issued a dodgy DN and the Debtor had then terminated without repayment then surely the dodgy DN

a) would prevent the Creditor from ENFORCING?

b) would meant the Creditor could NO LONGER raise a correct DN, as the Agreement was terminated before this could happen?

c) would mean a Court would (could?) not force the Debtor to repay anything still outstanding under the Agreement?

d) is it not the case that whilst the "debt" or "liability" would still exist, the Debtor could simply refuse to pay (and after 6 years it would be SB) and the Creditor would be powerless to do anything other than trash the Debtor's Credit File?

 

4. If the answers to 3a) to 3d) are YES then is that not the same outcome as was averred in the long lamented thread started by Pinky69?

 

BD

 

I think an interesting point about this term is that it says that either party can only termiante if the total ballance is repaid.

Taken litterally this would meen the creditor could not terminate either. So how would he enforce a defaulted agreement?

 

You can see why they changed it.

 

Thinking about it though it doesnt really make a lot of difference, the debtor says they are not going to be bound by the agreement they are not going to pay by installment and they do not, or cannot pay the full balance, so what is the court to do.

Are they to say well you cannot terminate because you have not paid so keep the money, wouldnt that be nice.

 

Peter

Edited by Dodgeball

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think an interesting point about this term is that it says that either party can only termiante if the total ballance is repaid.

Taken litterally this would meen the creditor could not terminate either. So how would he enforce a defaulted agreement?

 

A: Perhaps he couldn't - now that would be nice too (for the debtor). Maybe why MBNA was so keen in 2007 to offer me a 35% deal on 4 cards at a "saving" of £23k to me - but ensuring they got £11k to which they were probably not legally entitled!

 

You can see why they changed it.

 

Thinking about it though it doesnt really make a lot of difference, the debtor says they are not going to be bound by the agreement they are not going to pay by installment and they do not, or cannot pay the full balance, so what is the court to do.

Are they to say well you cannot terminate because you have not paid so keep the money, wouldnt that be nice.

 

A: Peter - Yes indeed. In my view that would not only be NICE - but would in fact be the only logical outcome.

To do otherwise would surely mean the Courts acting outside of the Law?

 

Peter

 

Peter - See answers marked A; above in bold (it gets very confusing sometimnes to differentiate who has said what otherwise).

 

Surely taking my analysis through to conclusion does tend to infer that those who said only legal arrears are due when an agreement is terminated on the back of a dodgy DN may ALMOST be correct - i.e. possibly not even the ARREARS need to be paid?

 

By "due" I mean "legally enforceable". I do not accept any "moral high ground" arguments where Banks other OC's and DCA's are concerned and believe only debts that can be legally enforced are "due".

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI

Just to complicate matters further ,this is an extract from the current Egg agreement

 

22.3 If this Agreement is ended by you or us, you must ensure that no further Transactions are made and that any Continuous Payment Authorities or standing instructions are cancelled by telling the recipient of the payment to cancel them. We may continue to apply Charges to the Account until you have repaid the Balance in full. You will still have to pay all sums that you owe us (including Transactions, and Charges applied to the Account after the Agreement has ended) in accordance with the Agreement. The Agreement terms allowing the making of new Transactions will no longer be effective, but all other terms will continue to apply until you have repaid your Balance in full.

SO in this they talk about either party ending the agreement but the liabilities will still remain and so will the terms that permit repayment.

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter - See answers marked A; above in bold (it gets very confusing sometimnes to differentiate who has said what otherwise).

 

Surely taking my analysis through to conclusion does tend to infer that those who said only legal arrears are due when an agreement is terminated on the back of a dodgy DN may ALMOST be correct - i.e. possibly not even the ARREARS need to be paid?

 

By "due" I mean "legally enforceable". I do not accept any "moral high ground" arguments where Banks other OC's and DCA's are concerned and believe only debts that can be legally enforced are "due".

 

BD

 

HI being pedantic i would think it would be acting outside the tems of the contract. I dont think the legislation has much to say in this.

 

I think the case here is that either everything is claimable or nothing is. If either party could not teminate due to some contractural term then i do not se how any contractural enfocement can be brought.

I do not thinkit would apply if the agreement was repudiated however.

I believe a repudiatory breach is always acctionable under common law.

 

 

On breach however section 87 steps in. The default and default termination are matters of statute and i think the contractural terms would be overridden.

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Peter,

 

Using your previously proferred logic that if a term does NOT prevent "something" or specifically REQUIRE "something else" - then that "something" CAN be done - i.e. since the older MBNA agreements were "silent" on the need to repay the outstanding balances (unlike Egg's) then surely MBNA's older agreements DO permit termination without the balances being repaid?

 

Surely "as sophisticated financial institutions who never make mistakes" (which is what Judges clearly believe?) if they had wanted to have the same terms as Egg surely they would have done so - so clearly they must be quite happy to have unilateral terminations and not be repaid anything further?

 

Since following termination no dodgy DN can be rectified, then no further sums need to be paid by a Debtor to holders of older MBNA accounts (unlike Egg)?

 

BD

 

PS I have two Egg agreements going back to around 2000. It will be interesting to see if these have the same terms as you have quoted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Peter,

 

Using your previously proferred logic that if a term does NOT prevent "something" or specifically REQUIRE "something else" - then that "something" CAN be done - i.e. since the older MBNA agreements were "silent" on the need to repay the outstanding balances (unlike Egg's) then surely MBNA's older agreements DO permit termination without the balances being repaid?

 

Surely "as sophisticated financial institutions who never make mistakes" (which is what Judges clearly believe?) if they had wanted to have the same terms as Egg surely they would have done so - so clearly they must be quite happy to have unilateral terminations and not be repaid anything further?

 

Since following termination no dodgy DN can be rectified, then no further sums need to be paid by a Debtor to holders of older MBNA accounts (unlike Egg)?

 

BD

 

PS I have two Egg agreements going back to around 2000. It will be interesting to see if these have the same terms as you have quoted.

 

Hi

 

"Using your previously proferred logic that if a term does NOT prevent "something" or specifically REQUIRE "something else" - then that "something" CAN be done"

This is a very good discription of how statute works with perhaps the addition that the thing can be done as long as no other statute has something to say about it(unfair terms etc)

 

It is the sttute that is silent on what is prescribed by contractural termintions in a contract.

So bassically the egg one is perfectly legal and so is the MBNA ones there is notbing in statute that says a contractural termiantion must be made this way or that way it is down to the contract

This also means of course that if they makee a boo boo on ther contact on this the statute will not pull them out of the mire.

 

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI

Just to complicate matters further ,this is an extract from the current Egg agreement

 

22.3 If this Agreement is ended by you or us, you must ensure that no further Transactions are made and that any Continuous Payment Authorities or standing instructions are cancelled by telling the recipient of the payment to cancel them. We may continue to apply Charges to the Account until you have repaid the Balance in full. You will still have to pay all sums that you owe us (including Transactions, and Charges applied to the Account after the Agreement has ended) in accordance with the Agreement. The Agreement terms allowing the making of new Transactions will no longer be effective, but all other terms will continue to apply until you have repaid your Balance in full.

SO in this they talk about either party ending the agreement but the liabilities will still remain and so will the terms that permit repayment.

Peter

 

thats very interesting...but totally irrelevant .....the case in which you refer to (PH) the judges decisions is an MBNA agreement- please show me the authority that says an MBNA customer is bound by the terms and conditions of an Egg agreeement!

 

Now show me ONE court case in which a judge has used the terms and conditions of an Egg agreement to find against a debtor with an MBNA agreement .......and i will leave this forum forever

 

surely it would have been a lot easier to utter those three little words

- begins with I and ends with wrong!

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4762 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...