Cause of action/statute barred

[fletch70]

Sorry Mike you have list me.

[Mike_hawk]

Sorry Mike you have list me.

 

There were references within the links I posted for you a while back, concomitant damage, what constitutes a severe breach, how the effect of s9 cannot delay or compound cause under enactment etc etc....

[charharp]

The fact it was overturned shows to my mind that the law evolves. If bmw hadn't appealed this discussion would be premature.

If as you say they can demand full payment after 1 missed payment that would need to be written into the contract and if,as in my cap 1 contract it says under normal circumstances we will give you 30 days that would be 2 months after last payment.

Of course if you take the stance that it is from the time court action can be brought that would add another 14+service days to the argument.

As i have said before i am not entirely convinced by. dodgeballs argument that termination has to actually

take place

 

Judge ruled barred because he was using the normal rules. That contract was a HP which specifically stated the contract had to be terminated before payment could be demanded and was overturned. This is not the case with loans and credit cards. They can demand payment as soon as you miss a payment, if they choose to give you upto 30 days to correct it, it's irrelevant. Dodge can't see the forest for the trees.

[fletch70]

Sorry Mike. Not only have i been to sleep since then i have also drunk Scotland dry of grouse lol

[Mike_hawk]

Sorry Mike. Not only have i been to sleep since then i have also drunk Scotland dry of grouse lol

 

 

Lol, me too mate........ thought that was what crimbo was for

 

Try post #491 and research each and every citation.

[charharp]

Lol, me too mate........ thought that was what crimbo was for

 

Try post #491 and research each and every citation.

 

I'd check if google translates from Latin first

[Mike_hawk]

I'd check if google translates from Latin first

 

All England and Wales??

[fletch70]

One thing I have found in this

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=w5SjhwvDNmwC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=Read+v+Brown+(1888)+22+QBD&source=bl&ots=UyuGhoncHE&sig=6vgTWL-UkiK4SCBzautZmGq6ziM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7_3BUtPoKMiN7QbC94CIBA&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Read%20v%20Brown%20(1888)%2022%20QBD&f=false

 

The cause of action on an overdraft is when the overdraft is called in.

 

I will continue my research tomorrow

[fletch70]

Nowt wrong with a bit of Latin..still in use in places . Grade D at O level here which was a bloody miracle. (Also ages me)

[Mike_hawk]

One thing I have found in this

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=w5SjhwvDNmwC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=Read+v+Brown+(1888)+22+QBD&source=bl&ots=UyuGhoncHE&sig=6vgTWL-UkiK4SCBzautZmGq6ziM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7_3BUtPoKMiN7QbC94CIBA&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Read%20v%20Brown%20(1888)%2022%20QBD&f=false

 

The cause of action on an overdraft is when the overdraft is called in.

 

I will continue my research tomorrow

 

That's possibly correct prior to 2011 for tacit agreements with no disclosure of facility terms and conditions........ depends on the T's & C's [if available to you]

[Mike_hawk]

Nowt wrong with a bit of Latin..still in use in places . Grade D at O level here which was a bloody miracle. (Also ages me)

 

B for me........ ages me too, preferred French but Miss P..... in latin [and short skirts] won the h***ny 15 year old over

[charharp]

One thing I have found in this

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=w5SjhwvDNmwC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=Read+v+Brown+(1888)+22+QBD&source=bl&ots=UyuGhoncHE&sig=6vgTWL-UkiK4SCBzautZmGq6ziM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7_3BUtPoKMiN7QbC94CIBA&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Read%20v%20Brown%20(1888)%2022%20QBD&f=false

 

The cause of action on an overdraft is when the overdraft is called in.

 

I will continue my research tomorrow

 

Interesting point in there that your name has to be signed on any letter of acknowledgement to reset limitations.

[charharp]

It also backs up my point when it says COA accrues from date of infringement and the procedural requirements after that are irrelevant. There is no sane person who can believe Dodge's argument. Everything he has quoted had either gone against his point or at best been neutral and given he's gone back to the last ice age, across the other side of the world, into a new dimension...sometimes all at once and still has nothing shows how little merit he has.

[Peterbard]

One thing I have found in this

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=w5SjhwvDNmwC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=Read+v+Brown+(1888)+22+QBD&source=bl&ots=UyuGhoncHE&sig=6vgTWL-UkiK4SCBzautZmGq6ziM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7_3BUtPoKMiN7QbC94CIBA&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Read%20v%20Brown%20(1888)%2022%20QBD&f=false

 

The cause of action on an overdraft is when the overdraft is called in.

 

I will continue my research tomorrow

 

Hmm

 

This thread has ben busy

 

Good find this Fletch noticed this on page 92

 

“Claims by banks to recover overdrafts usually accrues on a demand I writing (section 6 sol)”

 

Sounds vaguely familiar

 

Also the idea that a loan under a contract cannot be recalled until the agreement is terminated is not my contention it is common law, it is mentioned is several authorities already quoted on here, but no great deal is made of it because it is accepted(trite law).

 

Still having problems with Mikes insistence that section 9 and the legislation regarding enactments has anything to do with the subject, I thought this covered orders made,well under an enactment. Prrhaps some relevant case law may assist.

[Peterbard]

Ah yes and there is this also which sounds like It could have come form one of my earlier posts

 

Yes section 7.22

 

“In cases where the claimant has accepted anticipatory breach as repudiation time runs from the date of acceptance rather than the contractual date for the obligation of the performance in question”

[silverfox1961]

We have seen a few posts unapproved due to personal insults. This is NOT sarcasm as some will say.

 

If you cannot have a reasoned dialogue without resorting to petty insults, you are in the wrong place.

 

Keep it civil. Simple as!

[Peterbard]

BMW couldn't claim the money until the agreement had been terminated. Very unusual case, judge said so.

 

Really can you quote the paragraph where he said this ?

 

Here is some of the judgement.

 

28. Clause 12 is on its face subject to two conditions precedent; namely the termination of

the hiring by the owner under clause 12, or the acceptance by the owner of the customer's

repudiation. In my judgment, since one or other of those conditions precedent must be

fulfilled before the right to payments under clause 12 arises, it must follow that no cause of

action accrued until satisfaction of one or other of those two conditions.

29. I agree, therefore, with my Lords, Lord Justice Rix and Lord Justice Moore-Bick, in their

analysis of the decision of this court in Reeves v Butcher. The conclusions of my Lords, with

which I agree, are consistent not only with principle but with authority, and in particular the

decisions in Lakshmijit v Faiz Sherani and Thakore v Malick. Where the Limitation Act

makes a different provision, it does so expressly; for example in paragraph 7 of schedule 1 to

the Act dealing with forfeiture, which provides:

"(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, a right of action to recover

land by virtue of a forfeiture or breach of condition shall be treated as

having accrued on the date on which the forfeiture was incurred or the

 

10 of 11 06/09/2013 15:54

 

 

http://www.casetrack.com/ct4plc.nsf/items/2-532-2706

 

condition broken."

 

That exception is needed, because as a matter of general principle where a remedy arises

on the election of one party to the contract, the cause of action does not accrue until

the election is made.

 

My emphasis

 

To me this seems to say GENERAL PRINCIPLE not "unusual case"

Edited January 1, 2014 by Dodgeball

[fletch70]

Dodge , with regard to Mikes post

 

I read it as this, please someone correct me if wrong

 

If there is a cause of action for example a contractual breach then the limitations period starts from that point even if the creditor needs to follow a process before starting said action.

 

An example...if a payment is missed and the contract allows for time to make that right such as 30 days then that would be the time the clock starts regardless of a need to issue a DN etc.

[charharp]

Everything I say is getting deleted so it pointless.

[fletch70]

Always helps not to be rude about people however passionate you feel

[charharp]

Correct fletch although the 30 day period is probably irrelevant. Dodge skips past this point over and over and over and over and over and over...........……And over and over and over again.

[fletch70]

With all due respect , probably is not a word I would like to use in my defence.

 

I do not think I was making myself clear in that what I posted was my interpretation of S9

[charharp]

It would hold as a defence because the breach has occurred, it doesn't matter if you are given time to remedy it. Being given thirty days and still not paying would mean a second breach which is irrelevant because you only need one breach.

 

Don't fall into Dodges trap of section 5 sub paragraph 2e amendment 4 nonsense. It's an exercise in futility.

[Peterbard]

Dodge , with regard to Mikes post

 

I read it as this, please someone correct me if wrong

 

If there is a cause of action for example a contractual breach then the limitations period starts from that point even if the creditor needs to follow a process before starting said action.

 

An example...if a payment is missed and the contract allows for time to make that right such as 30 days then that would be the time the clock starts regardless of a need to issue a DN etc.

 

The fact that the agreement must be terminated has been well established, the mentions of repudiatory breach also confirm that this mus be the case because otherwise why bother , the COA would just be when the payment was missed and only the contractual payment was due.

 

Personally I believe that the COA is further delayed by the requirements of the act, I am not alone in this belief as shown by the authority quoted, it also does not necessarily mean that I am right, but it is my belief.

 

A default notice is not just a procedural bar, in the sense mentioned in other case law on this thread, it is a block to any enforcement, or even to a demand for payment. This is why i believe that i delays the date, the creditor cannot demand payment for exactly the same reason he cannot on a contractual breach, if you accept there must be a contractual term or repudiatory breach before a COA I cannot see how you cannot accept that the same must apply for the section 87 notice.

 

As fas as section 9 is concerned, my belief is that actions under this heading refer to those made under a legal action(statute) in other words not a contractual dispute rather a law which states that something is due because some law or other has been breached. I was seeking clarification on how this applies to default notices, which I do know are nothing more than a contractual statutory information notice(in this respect).

Edited January 1, 2014 by Dodgeball
Read a bit more and I was right, so no need to dither

[Peterbard]

 

Don't fall into Dodges trap of section 5 sub paragraph 2e amendment 4 nonsense. It's an exercise in futility.

 

Could you link, I seem to have mislaid this