What makes you think, you owe the bank money?

[gastfo]

abc

[blazing-badger]

Blimey, where do I start?

 

Of course companies can enter into contracts. They are incorporated under the Companies Acts and have basically the same rights and duties as any other person.

 

It really doesn't matter whether your name is in block capitals or not, it's still your name.

 

And finally, it's just nonsense - and dangerous nonsense - to say that Social Services can take your child away just because you have registered the birth. It doesn't hand over your rights to your child. Your children can only be taken away, when necessary for their own protection, under the legal procedures laid down by the Children Act.

[adarling2006]

this is very dangerous and even naive to think this way.

[Bookworm]

Here are just a few of the points outlined in a pdf e-book I can freely distribute. Does anybody know a neutral place to host it?

 

Neutral?

In a place where this load of nonsense can be seen by the least people possible, so... under your sink? Seems reasonably neutral to me.

 

I must say, I have seldom read so much rubbish concentrated on such a small space, the Daily Sport included, and like the Daily Sport, the author seems to have only a very tenuous link with reality!

 

PS: Mary Croft's musings are based on American & Canadian societies, so even if she made any sense, it wouldn't necessarily apply to this country.

[Bigmac versus]

Unfortunately the pdf-ebook you refer to dosent sound very good.

Your intentions are there to help others but the ebook you refer to really does sound bad.

[adarling2006]

ouch

[Bigmac versus]

Silly move that dirty, obviously you havent read any posts by Booky or you wouldnt have said that.

[gastfo]

abc

[gastfo]

abc

[gastfo]

abc

[PPMAN159]

One saving grace for the Daily Sport Bookie-the photos!!

[Lula]

what a pile of arse!

[blazing-badger]

So where does this writing names in block capitals come from? Why do banks

and Government use this way to address me?

How about this, a quote from another person on another forum:

 

...My name appears in UPPERCASE in the Personal Guarantee document, and I am led to believe that this constitutes an agreement with a TRADING ENTITY not a live human person. Is it correct that a contract/finance agreement made out to someone whose name is printed in UPPERCASE constitutes an unenforceable agreement? (corporations can't sign because they have no right, or mind, to contract ????)

 

My thought is, the banks and government create a trading entity with my name in CAPITALS and as long as I believe that I am playing by their games.

 

You can believe the world is flat, but that doesn't make it so. The person you quote is wrong, an agreement isn't unenforceable because the name is in block capitals. Names are usually printed in capitals because computers find it difficult to turn uppercase into title case.

 

Of course they need a reason, but what I meant was if the birth of your children were not registered the government would have no legal right to hold your children, or take them away as, when and how they seem fit.

 

The right of Social Services to remove your children for their protection has nothing to do with registration. If you didn't register your child's birth, it would still exist.

[meagain]

What the banks refer to as "your contract with us" is not a valid bilateral agreement since the four requirements of a lawful, binding contract were not met on the credit card/loan "application", namely:

(oversimplification) intention, offer, acceptance, consideration. I'll come back to this. But first:

 

1. Full Disclosure (we are not told that we are creating the credit with our signature )

 

The words THIS IS A CREDIT AGREEMENT REGULATED BY THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 (or similar) are generally the dead giveaway.

 

2. Equal Consideration (they bring nothing to the table, hence they have nothing to lose)

 

The facility of credit is ther consideration. Your promise to meet the bill is yours.

 

3. Lawful Terms and Conditions (they are based upon fraud)

 

Maybe, but not a requirement for a contract. Fraudulent terms does not mean a contract is invalid, just that you can treat the contract either with different terms ("interpretation most favourable") or as if those terms did not exist ("not binding upon the consumer"). Of course, if there's nothing left of the contract after you've done that, that's another story.

 

4. Signatures of the Parties/Meeting of the Minds (corporations can't sign because they have no right, or mind, to contract as they are legal fictions)

 

Legally, a company is a person. Any part of the law which applies to people will refer to a "natural person", whereas anything relating to both people and companies will refer to a "legal person". A representative of the company may sign on the company's behalf.

 

What is required (in simple terms - it's rather more complex than this) is:

* Intent: By advertising, the bank has made it known it intends to form a legal relation. By responding, you have signalled your intent to form a legal relation.

* Offer: The bank will offer you terms, and you offer the bank your status.

* Acceptance: If both sides find the other to be acceptable, they sign on the dotted line (or by the red X as it seems to be these days).

* Consideration: The bank pays for things on your behalf, you pay the bank in interest.

 

The name on the credit card/ loan/account is not your name it looks like your name but is a fictious creation and in CAPITALS. Your name is Name, not NAME.

 

Names are case-insensitive. It is only by tradition and by custom that folk like tony blair and gordon brown usually have their initials capitalised.

 

To prove you don't owe the bank ask them to provide you with 3 things:

1. validation of the debt (the actual accounting)

Namely your bank statement ...

2. verification of their claim against you (a sworn affidavit or even just a signed invoice)

That'll be the "Statement of Truth" section on the claim form, then.

3. a copy of the contract binding both parties

SS77-79 Consumer Credit Act, though in fairness the banks seem to have difficulty in fulfilling such requests properly.

 

The banks can't validate the debt because they never sustained a loss;

... other than that which arises from the money of theirs you have spent.

 

What exists is a unilateral contract.

 

Such a thing does not exist. Contracts are mutual agreements between two parties, founded on good faith (hence the "no penalties" thing). Anything which is extremely one-sided is by definition not a contract.

 

Which is why Social Services or any Government body can legally take away your children.

 

Actually, that's more to do with the duty of the Government to protect children, (arising from UNCRC), as well as the whole "act now, clean up later" thing, where things like mental illness are a barrier to the parent doing anything about it.

 

It is an e-book by Mary Croft which I can freely distribute but am limited to emailing it at the moment.

 

I might like to see a copy. I've been dying for a good laugh lately.

[werdna namkcaj]

"The facility of credit is their consideration. Your promise to meet the bill is yours."

 

How can there be consideration if it was your promise to meet the bill that created the credit in the 1st place, not from the reserves of the bank but from nothing?

 

"Names are case-insensitive."

 

So what is Capitis Diminutio Maxima (meaning a maximum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. JOHN DOE or DOE JOHN)?

 

 

"The banks can't validate the debt because they never sustained a loss; ..." - agreed

 

"other than that which arises from the money of theirs you have spent."

 

 

You have not spent their money - you have spent the money you enabled them to create, it did not exist before the signature and in fact you only accessed a small proportion of the money that your promise to pay created.

 

Thus, can the debt be validated if there was never a loss showing in the accounting?

 

Your gain on a bank statement does not show their loss.

 

 

Love to you all.

[blazing-badger]

"The facility of credit is their consideration. Your promise to meet the bill is yours."

 

How can there be consideration if it was your promise to meet the bill that created the credit in the 1st place, not from the reserves of the bank but from nothing?

 

 

Rubbish. Of course the bank has the money in reserve to lend to you, if only the right to draw that from other banks

 

"Names are case-insensitive."

 

So what is Capitis Diminutio Maxima (meaning a maximum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. JOHN DOE or DOE JOHN)?

 

 

It's a term from Roman law relating to the status of Roman citizens and so is about 2,000 years out of date. It means the maximum loss of status but doesn't have anything to do with capitalization. "Capitis" in this sense refers to "Status"

 

"The banks can't validate the debt because they never sustained a loss; ..." - agreed

 

"other than that which arises from the money of theirs you have spent."

 

 

You have not spent their money - you have spent the money you enabled them to create, it did not exist before the signature and in fact you only accessed a small proportion of the money that your promise to pay created.

 

Thus, can the debt be validated if there was never a loss showing in the accounting?

 

Your gain on a bank statement does not show their loss.

 

 

Utter drivel.