Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[andrew1]

I might be being a little simplistic here - but if the judge asks "how did you come to buy the property? did you receive money to purchase it from a lender and sign an agreement to pay the borrowed money back?

 

 

Surely it can't be thought that telling the judge "yes we borrowed the money but there's a bit of paper we think isn't right" will result in the judge saying Oh, OK then you don't have to pay the money back - ergo you have a house for free??

 

 

well in CCA terms and Prof Bennion's opinion (Oh he who drafted the CCA '74) that may be so Ell-enn....

 

….. in Bennions further writings you’ll note:

“Dr Lawson may be interested to know that I included the provision in question

(section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor

Company couldn’t be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately

included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable, and that the court should

not have power to relieve it from this penalty. Nobody queried this, and it went through

Parliament without debate. I’m glad the House of Lords has now vindicated my reasoning and

confirmed that nobody’s human rights were infringed.

 

Not that I wan't to throw a spanner in these marvelous debates going on here:madgrin:

 

A1

[Ell-enn]

If the consumer wins - what do they expect the outcome to do for them - are they expecting the money they borrowed to buy their home to be written off ?

 

 

I asked this question yesterday - anyone got an answer?

[Peterbard]

Your being pedantic now ; )

 

No intent to 'insult' Dodge - apologies if it came across that way - I've yet to master the genteel art of the written word. I'm working on it though.

 

You assert that there is no evidence that a deed is signed by a 'lender' - I merely sought to point out that anyone can be a 'lender' - wouldn't you agree?

 

Then - if we take for granted that there was a 'lender' in the 'garguillo' decision...... then that 'lender' did sign the deed Dodge...... even though that 'lender' signed the deed..... the deed was void.

 

There was a lender in 'bibby'......that lender signed the deed Dodge......the deed was void.

 

We are finding that the 'lender' does not sign the deed ..... but says his deed is valid.......???

 

Strange don't you think???

 

Apple

 

I find it strange you dwell on irrelevancies although not altogether surprising as you have no Authority

[applecart]

And why was the deed void ????

 

In Bibby, the two directors were under the belief that clean versions of the documents incorporating their manuscript changes would be circulated and signed afresh. Therefore there was no intention by them to be bound by these deeds.

 

In regard to mortgage deeds, the actual mortgage deed itself (if we use the accord deed as an example) includes the signature section and there is no expectation by the borrower that the mortgage deed they sign is nothing but the actual mortgage deed, used to grant a charge. When you sign the mortgage deed, unlike in Bibby, you don’t expect amendments to be made to it

 

Bibby much like Garguilo is irrelevant to question of is a mortgage deed void if it has not been signed by the lender.

 

What are you actually saying here Ben;

 

The question was simply put - did the parties in Bibby and in Garguillo sign the deed or not??

 

Apple

[bhall]

In Bibby in case you missed it the deed was void, because the deed they signed was not the final version of the deed - unlike a mortgage deed, which is the final version of the deed

 

327. Turning to the form of the original documents adduced in court, it was obvious, and in the end may not have been in dispute, that the documents as currently bound had, at some point in the past, but after signature by Mr. Magson or Mr. Scott or both, not been bound. Were that not so, the photocopies of pages bearing dates apparently applied by Bibby ID or Bibby FS would not be included in what were initially presented as original documents. At very least, if bound when signed, the documents had been unbound to be photocopied, and, in the process of assembling the papers for binding, photocopied pages had been incorporated in place of original pages. However, there were grounds for supposing that at least the Saracen Guarantee may have been assembled for binding with a page, page 16, or pages incorporated which had not been there when the execution page, page 18, had been signed on behalf of Bibby FS. In addition, the change in the colour of pen used by Mr. Magson from black, used for most of the documents he signed, to blue, for the Warranty only, indicated that what had happened in the Pub was not that the documents were presented to Mr. Magson and Mr. Scott, who then each just signed what was put before him one after the other as quickly as a signature could be applied, but that, at least before Mr. Magson signed the Warranty, there was a pause of sufficient length for him to put down one pen in a location in which it was not conveniently to hand when he wished to sign the Warranty.

 

Bibby Financial Services Ltd & Anor v Magson & Ors [2011] EWHC 2495 (QB) (14 October 2011)

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/2495.html

 

 

332. In the case of a deed executed by an individual it is provided, so far as is presently material, by Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 s.1(3) that:-

 

"An instrument is validly executed as a deed by an individual if, and only if –

 

(a) it is signed -

 

(i) by him in the presence of a witness who attests the signature; …

 

(b) it is delivered as a deed by him or a person authorised to do so on his behalf."

 

333. So far as limited liability companies are concerned, Law of Property Act 1925 s.74A provides that:-

 

"(1) An instrument is validly executed by a corporation aggregate as a deed for the purposes of section 1(2)(b) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, if and only if –

 

(a) it is duly executed by the corporation, and

 

(b) it is delivered as a deed."

 

334. Thus, in order for a document to be enforceable as a deed, whether executed by an individual or a limited liability company, it is necessary for it to be delivered as a deed. What amounts to delivery of a deed in English law has been established for over 400 years. It was explained by Popham J in Hawksland v. Gatchel (1601) Cro. Eliz. 835 at pages 835 – 836:-

 

"For if, upon delivery, the words spoken by the obligor purport that it shall not be his deed, it is clear that it is not: as where one causeth an obligation to be written and sealed in my name, and brings it unto me, and prays that I would deliver it as my deed, and I say, "Do you such a thing, and take it as my deed, otherwise not;" it is clear, that it is not my deed until the thing be performed. So if the obligor saith, "Take it to you, I will not deliver it as my deed;" it is not his deed. Wherefore in the principal case, when the obligation is delivered as an escrow, by express words, it is not possible that it should be his deed, for the words are not sufficient to make it so until the condition be performed."

 

335. The critical thing is that the person who has signed the deed must have separately indicated that he intends to be bound by the deed. Mere signature is not enough. Nor is it enough that what looks like a deed has been given to the person who appears to be the beneficiary of it – the issue is not whether the document has been physically handed over to the beneficiary, but whether the person whose deed it is supposed to be intended to be bound by it. The point was explained by Sir Charles Hall V.C. in Watkins v. Nash (1875) LR 20 Eq 262 at page 266:-

 

Please remember it is the borrowers deed, as the borrower is granting the charge to the lender

[applecart]

In Bibby in case you missed it the deed was void, because the deed they signed was not the final version of the deed - unlike a mortgage deed, which is the final version of the deed

 

327. Turning to the form of the original documents adduced in court, it was obvious, and in the end may not have been in dispute, that the documents as currently bound had, at some point in the past, but after signature by Mr. Magson or Mr. Scott or both, not been bound. Were that not so, the photocopies of pages bearing dates apparently applied by Bibby ID or Bibby FS would not be included in what were initially presented as original documents. At very least, if bound when signed, the documents had been unbound to be photocopied, and, in the process of assembling the papers for binding, photocopied pages had been incorporated in place of original pages. However, there were grounds for supposing that at least the Saracen Guarantee may have been assembled for binding with a page, page 16, or pages incorporated which had not been there when the execution page, page 18, had been signed on behalf of Bibby FS. In addition, the change in the colour of pen used by Mr. Magson from black, used for most of the documents he signed, to blue, for the Warranty only, indicated that what had happened in the Pub was not that the documents were presented to Mr. Magson and Mr. Scott, who then each just signed what was put before him one after the other as quickly as a signature could be applied, but that, at least before Mr. Magson signed the Warranty, there was a pause of sufficient length for him to put down one pen in a location in which it was not conveniently to hand when he wished to sign the Warranty.

 

Bibby Financial Services Ltd & Anor v Magson & Ors [2011] EWHC 2495 (QB) (14 October 2011)

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/2495.html

 

 

332. In the case of a deed executed by an individual it is provided, so far as is presently material, by Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 s.1(3) that:-

 

"An instrument is validly executed as a deed by an individual if, and only if –

 

(a) it is signed -

 

(i) by him in the presence of a witness who attests the signature; …

 

(b) it is delivered as a deed by him or a person authorised to do so on his behalf."

 

333. So far as limited liability companies are concerned, Law of Property Act 1925 s.74A provides that:-

 

"(1) An instrument is validly executed by a corporation aggregate as a deed for the purposes of section 1(2)(b) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, if and only if –

 

(a) it is duly executed by the corporation, and

 

(b) it is delivered as a deed."

 

334. Thus, in order for a document to be enforceable as a deed, whether executed by an individual or a limited liability company, it is necessary for it to be delivered as a deed. What amounts to delivery of a deed in English law has been established for over 400 years. It was explained by Popham J in Hawksland v. Gatchel (1601) Cro. Eliz. 835 at pages 835 – 836:-

 

"For if, upon delivery, the words spoken by the obligor purport that it shall not be his deed, it is clear that it is not: as where one causeth an obligation to be written and sealed in my name, and brings it unto me, and prays that I would deliver it as my deed, and I say, "Do you such a thing, and take it as my deed, otherwise not;" it is clear, that it is not my deed until the thing be performed. So if the obligor saith, "Take it to you, I will not deliver it as my deed;" it is not his deed. Wherefore in the principal case, when the obligation is delivered as an escrow, by express words, it is not possible that it should be his deed, for the words are not sufficient to make it so until the condition be performed."

 

335. The critical thing is that the person who has signed the deed must have separately indicated that he intends to be bound by the deed. Mere signature is not enough. Nor is it enough that what looks like a deed has been given to the person who appears to be the beneficiary of it – the issue is not whether the document has been physically handed over to the beneficiary, but whether the person whose deed it is supposed to be intended to be bound by it. The point was explained by Sir Charles Hall V.C. in Watkins v. Nash (1875) LR 20 Eq 262 at page 266:-

 

The question was simply put - did the parties in 'bibby' and 'garguillo' sign the deed or not?

 

There is no need for a huge post - just answer 'yes' or 'no'

 

Apple

[bhall]

What are you actually saying here Ben;

 

The question was simply put - did the parties in Bibby and in Garguillo sign the deed or not??

 

Apple

 

 

Please after yesterday, don't even try it with me - You demand answers, yet you duck and dive the questions posed to you - the irony of your comments

 

 

I am telling you the reason why the deed was void, not your interpretation of why the deed was void - It was because it was signed in a pub and at a later date after it had been signed it was amended -

 

it was shown yesterday that you misinterpreted Garguillo and today you are doing the same with Bibby - Remember the Property Chamber has already told Is It Me? you are wrong to rely on those cases - but just keep ignoring that fact

[Peterbard]

well in CCA terms and Prof Bennion's opinion (Oh he who drafted the CCA '74) that may be so Ell-enn....

 

….. in Bennions further writings you’ll note:

“Dr Lawson may be interested to know that I included the provision in question

(section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor

Company couldn’t be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately

included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable, and that the court should

not have power to relieve it from this penalty. Nobody queried this, and it went through

Parliament without debate. I’m glad the House of Lords has now vindicated my reasoning and

confirmed that nobody’s human rights were infringed.

 

Not that I wan't to throw a spanner in these marvelous debates going on here:madgrin:

 

A1

 

No it is a welcome diversion.

 

In the case if a regulated agreement the debtors signature is essential if it is going to be enforced(at least before April 2007), the lack of the lenders is merely improper execution and a court would enforce because of the absence of prejudice to the borrower.

[applecart]

I find it strange you dwell on irrelevancies although not altogether surprising as you have no Authority

 

Ok Dodge ....

 

Maybe if I ask you nicely - please can you answer the question that Ben struggles to answer for me....

 

did the parties in bibby and garguillo sign the deed or not?

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

Please after yesterday, don't even try it with me

 

 

I am telling you the reason why the deed was void, not your interpretation of why the deed was void - It was because it was signed in a pub and at a later date after it had been signed it was amended

 

This has been covered many times before, I would put the previous avatar back up again Ben.

[applecart]

No it is a welcome diversion.

 

In the case if a regulated agreement the debtors signature is essential if it is going to be enforced(at least before April 2007), the lack of the lenders is merely improper execution and a court would enforce because of the absence of prejudice to the borrower.

 

Where's the common law and the 'authority' for this assertion Dodge?

 

Only joking ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Please after yesterday, don't even try it with me - You demand answers, yet you duck and dive the questions posed to you - the irony of your comments

 

 

I am telling you the reason why the deed was void, not your interpretation of why the deed was void - It was because it was signed in a pub and at a later date after it had been signed it was amended -

 

it was shown yesterday that you misinterpreted Garguillo and today you are doing the same with Bibby - Remember the Property Chamber has already told Is It Me? you are wrong to rely on those cases - but just keep ignoring that fact

 

I didn't ask you if the deed was void.

 

I asked you if the parties to the deed in 'bibby' and 'garguillo' signed the deed or not?

 

What do you mean 'after yesterday'..... I thought you liked the concept of banging your head against a stick symbol purporting to be a wall ; )

 

Apple

[applecart]

This has been covered many times before, I would put the previous avatar back up again Ben.

 

Please don't encourage him - he might have a sore head but I got a squint in my left eye - lol

 

Apple

[bhall]

From Bibby

 

325. Another aspect of the evidence of Mr. Darling which bordered on the absurd was what he said about the Offer Letter. At its most straightforward the point was that in the files of Bibby ID was the original of the Offer Letter, complete with Mr. Magson's handwriting. How did it get there? The alternatives offered by the evidence were, on the one hand, Mr. Magson and Mr. Scott gave it to Mr. Darling at the Pub after Mr. Magson had made such of his markings on it as appear, whilst, on the other, that it appeared in the form in which one now sees it through the post, with no covering letter or compliments slip. What would have been the purpose of sending the original Offer Letter with Mr. Magson's markings to Bibby once the documents signed on 27 August 2008 in the Pub had been signed, if Mr. Darling's account of the signature of the various documents were correct? The only possible answer is that it would have been the waste of a stamp.

Had it been necessary in this case to decide between accepting the evidence of Mr. Darling or that of Mr. Magson I should have found the matter very difficult. It may be that I should have resorted to the last refuge of a court, the burden of proof on each relevant point in difference. Happily, however, I was not placed in the position of deciding between Mr. Darling's evidence and that of Mr. Magson as to the events of 27 August 2008 with no other material. I have already identified factors which seemed to me to favour the account of Mr. Magson and others which demonstrated that, in my judgment, the account of Mr. Darling could not be correct. My confidence in my ultimate conclusion to accept, in substance, the evidence of Mr. Magson as to what occurred in the Pub on 27 August 2008 was greatly enhanced by the favourable impression made upon me by Mr. Scott. In some ways Mr. Scott took me by surprise. His witness statement, terse in comparison with those of Mr. Magson, supplied only a limited amount of detail, and his Defence seemed to focus on an aspect of the case which never really featured at trial, rectification. However, once he was in the witness box and being cross-examined, he described an event which one could imagine happening in the real world. Essentially there were three friends in a pub. They had business together, but there was no antagonism, no confrontation, no formalism. The picture which Mr. Scott presented was of Mr. Darling producing documents from his bag which were relevant to the transaction which they were discussing. Mr. Scott's main interest was in his personal liabilities. Mr. Magson, on the other hand, was going to run the business of QCFS and much more concerned about the detail of the particular provision suggested for the facility intended to be afforded to QCFS. Thus, on Mr. Scott's account, Mr. Magson went through the relevant parts of the documents which Mr. Darling had produced, and wrote on them what changes he wanted, as he went through. He focused, it seems, particularly on the Special Terms, but also noted the liabilities under the various guarantees and Warranties. The amendments were not drafted out as words to replace or add to what was there already, but were in the nature of notes of what needed to be attended to. Meanwhile Mr. Scott and Mr. Darling drank beer and discussed industry gossip, rugby and such like. When Mr. Magson presented notes on the documents to Mr. Darling and Mr. Scott for them to indicate agreement, they each initialled the relevant note. When Mr. Darling said that he wanted the documents to be signed as some sort of comfort for his colleagues, although they were to be amended, Mr. Magson and Mr. Scott obliged. From a legal point of view that was a course which was unwise, but, as presented by Mr. Scott, the thing was that his friend wanted signatures for the benefit of his colleagues although the documents were to be replaced. In human terms one can understand how it could have happened.

 

330. In the result, therefore, I accept the evidence of Mr. Scott as to what transpired at the meeting in the Pub on 27 August 2008 and the evidence of Mr. Magson, insofar as it was consistent with the evidence of Mr. Scott.

 

331. The legal consequences of my findings as to what had occurred at the meeting on 27 August 2008 were not in dispute. Each of the Guarantees and Warranties which Mr. Magson or Mr. Scott signed and which formed the bases of the claims against them in this action was, in form, a deed. So was the Bibby ID Agreement which it was said gave rise to the liabilities of QCFS which were the subject of the Guarantees and due performance of some of the obligations in which were said to have been warranted by the Warranties. Thus each of the Guarantees and the Warranties, as well as the Bibby ID Agreement, was required to be executed in the manner required by law.

 

As I appealed to you yesterday about Garguillo (and finally got through) - Please just read Bibby and stop with the interpretations

329.

[bhall]

I didn't ask you if the deed was void.

 

I asked you if the parties to the deed in 'bibby' and 'garguillo' signed the deed or not?

 

What do you mean 'after yesterday'..... I thought you liked the concept of banging your head against a stick symbol purporting to be a wall ; )

 

Apple

 

"yesterday" as in you finally accepting that you was wrong about "it" and Garguillo.- You ignored what the case actually said and relied on your interpretations - As you are now with Bibby

 

Have you forgotten already - I had to write it in my diary as a day to remember

[bhall]

Anyway banging my head against the wall is clearly a waste of time and as the decision is due to be issued in matter of days - I for one am now going to wait until the decision is issued, we will then see just how much or how little you actually know

 

But you keep positing Apple until then and pretending that anyone with an open mind takes your claims and fanciful ideas seriously

 

So until the decision is issued, you have fun posting - I will be back after it is issued

[applecart]

well in CCA terms and Prof Bennion's opinion (Oh he who drafted the CCA '74) that may be so Ell-enn....

 

….. in Bennions further writings you’ll note:

“Dr Lawson may be interested to know that I included the provision in question

(section 127(3)) entirely on my own initiative. It seemed right to me that if the creditor

Company couldn’t be bothered to ensure that all the prescribed particulars were accurately

included in the credit agreement it deserved to find it unenforceable, and that the court should

not have power to relieve it from this penalty. Nobody queried this, and it went through

Parliament without debate. I’m glad the House of Lords has now vindicated my reasoning and

confirmed that nobody’s human rights were infringed.

 

Not that I wan't to throw a spanner in these marvelous debates going on here:madgrin:

 

A1

 

No spanner A1

 

Clearly just another protection for consumers - ain't nothing wrong with that here - the more statutory protections for borrowers the merrier ; )

 

I do not lose sight of the fact that all mortgages are regulated one way or the other - either by the CCA or the FSA - is that right?

 

In fact - Lenders who sell the the 'mortgages' need to remember under s.2 (5)© regulated 'mortgages' are not exempt from the protection of section 2

 

That's to say - they still have to sign the deed as a speciality contract.

 

Apple

[applecart]

From Bibby

 

325. Another aspect of the evidence of Mr. Darling which bordered on the absurd was what he said about the Offer Letter. At its most straightforward the point was that in the files of Bibby ID was the original of the Offer Letter, complete with Mr. Magson's handwriting. How did it get there? The alternatives offered by the evidence were, on the one hand, Mr. Magson and Mr. Scott gave it to Mr. Darling at the Pub after Mr. Magson had made such of his markings on it as appear, whilst, on the other, that it appeared in the form in which one now sees it through the post, with no covering letter or compliments slip. What would have been the purpose of sending the original Offer Letter with Mr. Magson's markings to Bibby once the documents signed on 27 August 2008 in the Pub had been signed, if Mr. Darling's account of the signature of the various documents were correct? The only possible answer is that it would have been the waste of a stamp.

Had it been necessary in this case to decide between accepting the evidence of Mr. Darling or that of Mr. Magson I should have found the matter very difficult. It may be that I should have resorted to the last refuge of a court, the burden of proof on each relevant point in difference. Happily, however, I was not placed in the position of deciding between Mr. Darling's evidence and that of Mr. Magson as to the events of 27 August 2008 with no other material. I have already identified factors which seemed to me to favour the account of Mr. Magson and others which demonstrated that, in my judgment, the account of Mr. Darling could not be correct. My confidence in my ultimate conclusion to accept, in substance, the evidence of Mr. Magson as to what occurred in the Pub on 27 August 2008 was greatly enhanced by the favourable impression made upon me by Mr. Scott. In some ways Mr. Scott took me by surprise. His witness statement, terse in comparison with those of Mr. Magson, supplied only a limited amount of detail, and his Defence seemed to focus on an aspect of the case which never really featured at trial, rectification. However, once he was in the witness box and being cross-examined, he described an event which one could imagine happening in the real world. Essentially there were three friends in a pub. They had business together, but there was no antagonism, no confrontation, no formalism. The picture which Mr. Scott presented was of Mr. Darling producing documents from his bag which were relevant to the transaction which they were discussing. Mr. Scott's main interest was in his personal liabilities. Mr. Magson, on the other hand, was going to run the business of QCFS and much more concerned about the detail of the particular provision suggested for the facility intended to be afforded to QCFS. Thus, on Mr. Scott's account, Mr. Magson went through the relevant parts of the documents which Mr. Darling had produced, and wrote on them what changes he wanted, as he went through. He focused, it seems, particularly on the Special Terms, but also noted the liabilities under the various guarantees and Warranties. The amendments were not drafted out as words to replace or add to what was there already, but were in the nature of notes of what needed to be attended to. Meanwhile Mr. Scott and Mr. Darling drank beer and discussed industry gossip, rugby and such like. When Mr. Magson presented notes on the documents to Mr. Darling and Mr. Scott for them to indicate agreement, they each initialled the relevant note. When Mr. Darling said that he wanted the documents to be signed as some sort of comfort for his colleagues, although they were to be amended, Mr. Magson and Mr. Scott obliged. From a legal point of view that was a course which was unwise, but, as presented by Mr. Scott, the thing was that his friend wanted signatures for the benefit of his colleagues although the documents were to be replaced. In human terms one can understand how it could have happened.

 

330. In the result, therefore, I accept the evidence of Mr. Scott as to what transpired at the meeting in the Pub on 27 August 2008 and the evidence of Mr. Magson, insofar as it was consistent with the evidence of Mr. Scott.

 

331. The legal consequences of my findings as to what had occurred at the meeting on 27 August 2008 were not in dispute. Each of the Guarantees and Warranties which Mr. Magson or Mr. Scott signed and which formed the bases of the claims against them in this action was, in form, a deed. So was the Bibby ID Agreement which it was said gave rise to the liabilities of QCFS which were the subject of the Guarantees and due performance of some of the obligations in which were said to have been warranted by the Warranties. Thus each of the Guarantees and the Warranties, as well as the Bibby ID Agreement, was required to be executed in the manner required by law.

 

As I appealed to you yesterday about Garguillo (and finally got through) - Please just read Bibby and stop with the interpretations

329.

 

Ben this is not a contest about who throws up the longest post - (besides viewers are less likely to read them - even though you may be intending to make a valid point)

 

The question was simply put - did the parties in 'bibby' and 'garguillo' sign the deed or not?

 

A simple 'yes' or 'no' will do ; )

 

Apple

[bhall]

From Bibby

 

335. The critical thing is that the person who has signed the deed must have separately indicated that he intends to be bound by the deed. Mere signature is not enough. Nor is it enough that what looks like a deed has been given to the person who appears to be the beneficiary of it – the issue is not whether the document has been physically handed over to the beneficiary, but whether the person whose deed it is supposed to be intended to be bound by it. The point was explained by Sir Charles Hall V.C. in Watkins v. Nash (1875) LR 20 Eq 262 at page 266:-

 

Please remember it is the borrowers deed, as the borrower is granting the charge to the lender

 

Seriously start reading things and stop interpreting things

[applecart]

"yesterday" as in you finally accepting that you was wrong about "it" and Garguillo.- You ignored what the case actually said and relied on your interpretations - As you are now with Bibby

 

Have you forgotten already - I had to write it in my diary as a day to remember

 

No Ben .... in fact - I remember well that you went full circle to assist establish the relevance of s.2 - and then you reneged in favor of muddying the water.....nothing un-usual for you : )

 

Anyway - lets not cry over your spilt milk for too long...

 

Now, about the question.....

 

did the parties in both 'bibby' and 'garguillo' sign the deed or not?

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

Where's the common law and the 'authority' for this assertion Dodge?

 

Only joking ; )

 

Apple

 

Well section 61 of the act(signing of agreements ) states that both parties must sign if it is to be properly executed. Section 65 says that if an agreement is not properly executed it can only be enforced by an order of the court.

 

Orders are made via section 127(1) and are subject to prejudice (127(i)

 

127(3) prevents the issuance of an enforcement order where there is no debtors signature(no mention of the lender.

[applecart]

From Bibby

 

 

 

Seriously start reading things and stop interpreting things

 

Ben,

 

I hear you - but that does not answer the question........I give in - borrow me that avatar of your's ; )

 

Here's the question - did the parties in 'bibby' and 'garguillo' sign the deed or not??

 

Apple

[applecart]

Well section 61 of the act(signing of agreements ) states that both parties must sign if it is to be properly executed. Section 65 says that if an agreement is not properly executed it can only be enforced by an order of the court.

 

Orders are made via section 127(1) and are subject to prejudice (127(i)

 

127(3) prevents the issuance of an enforcement order where there is no debtors signature(no mention of the lender.

 

Yes, ok.....

 

CCA 1974 only applies to agreements made under it.

 

so, let's not confuse it use with what we are talking about right now......

 

Which is........did the parties in 'bibby' and 'garguillo' sign the deed or not Dodge?

 

Apple

[Peterbard]

Yes, ok.....

 

CCA 1974 only applies to agreements made under it.

 

so, let's not confuse it use with what we are talking about right now......

 

Which is........did the parties in 'bibby' and 'garguillo' sign the deed or not Dodge?

 

Apple

 

No it was a diversion and you asked.

 

Bibby has been explained to you many times and you still seem unable to grasp it, personally I ,like the answer that steampoweer gave you last November, so I will go with that

[applecart]

Anyway banging my head against the wall is clearly a waste of time and as the decision is due to be issued in matter of days - I for one am now going to wait until the decision is issued, we will then see just how much or how little you actually know

 

But you keep positing Apple until then and pretending that anyone with an open mind takes your claims and fanciful ideas seriously

 

So until the decision is issued, you have fun posting - I will be back after it is issued

 

Well whilst I will be sad to see you go Ben......especially after your revelations yesterday - and given that you are tasked to answer possibly the simplest question I have ever posted on this thread........I understand where you are coming from.

 

Do remember of course.......regardless of the decision ..... I have always promised to ensure that we 'tweak' and 'tweak' again until we get it absolutely spot on!

 

Apple