A defense for those having their action stayed

[bill65]

Got this from another forum:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=522841

 

 

Our common law is a creature of creation, in other words it accepts the law exists, it is therefor a matter for the courts to find and express what that law is, which in itself, is continuously evolving.

In other words there is no such thing as a hypothetical case in England common law, for the law is vested in us all. Which is what a test case would be.

 

 

 

 

To assist those who are having their actions stayed, on the bases that there is a test case, there is no such thing in English law. If you are in court and the defendant asks for proceedings to be stayed and the judge agrees, make your point, that you have no intension of forgoing your right to wager your law and that you will not have your law subjected to the will of another ( the so called test case), which is what the judge would be ordering and it is also another reason in common law, why there is no such thing as a test case. Your contract is between you and the bank and only you or the bank can sue upon.

 

 

 

 

I posted on an other board on rent restrictions by a rent officer explaining the unlawfulness of these decisions, in short, it is the law of market forces which sets the rent and not an officer of the state. In other words your contract cannot be subjected to the will of an other not a party to that contract.

This can only be done by way of a statutory act of parliament for that specific purpose just as parliament would have to pass a class action law in order to effectuate a so called test case.

 

 

.

 

 

Definition of a contract:

A contract has no life of it's own, it is born of agreement between the parties thereto, given vitality by their desires to strict a bargain, fertilized by way of negotiation. Once the bargain is struck a contract is born imbued with all the promises of the parties thereto and cloaked with the sanctity of the law.

 

 

You and the bank have brought to life a contract with a personality and characteristics all of it's own, the parenting of which, is your sole responsibility. If the banks have chosen to waiver, relinquish their legal rights, thats is a matter for them, you are not a party to such an agreement.

[blazing-badger]

This is just so wrong!

[jezzyjet]

whats wrong? sounds good to me what is the argument against the above statement? if it is correct this is great news for everyone ,,,jezzy

[blazing-badger]

Well, it's wrong to the extent that none of it is actually right.

 

It's just plain wrong to say "there is no such thing as a test case". The courts are entitled to stay actions if there is a precendent about to be set by a higher court. Whether it's right for them to do so in each case is a different matter, and there are some great resources on this site to help people defend an application. However this is not one of them.

[bill65]

Well, it's wrong to the extent that none of it is actually right.

 

It's just plain wrong to say "there is no such thing as a test case". The courts are entitled to stay actions if there is a precendent about to be set by a higher court. Whether it's right for them to do so in each case is a different matter, and there are some great resources on this site to help people defend an application. However this is not one of them.

 

I think what the poster is saying is the court already knows what the law is therefore, what is the test case going to find other than the actual cost to the banks for the breach, which many people say amounts to pennies and not pounds.

 

A precedent is not the law of the land it is a judgment the ratio of which can be applied by courts of equal status to assist them in their reasoning, even their lordships have agreed inter se that they can overrule themselves.

[Bookworm]

what is the test case going to find other than the actual cost to the banks for the breach, which many people say amounts to pennies and not pounds.

Well, for starters, that is NOT what the test case is about.

 

The test case first aim will be whether the banks are subject to the test of fairness under the UTCCR. If they are found not to be, the question of pounds or pennies will never even arise.

 

As for the "the court already knows what the law is ", well, what does that have to do with it? In any case, it is up to the claimant to prove his case, including quoting and arguing relevant law. :-?

[blazing-badger]

A precedent is the law of the land to the extent that it states the law definitively. Courts lower in the hierarchy are bound to follow that precedent.

[bill65]

A precedent is the law of the land to the extent that it states the law definitively. Courts lower in the hierarchy are bound to follow that precedent.

 

I agree it is good law for the time being untill a better one is found.But it depends very much if it is brought to the courts attention.

A precedent is a judgment resulting from a dispute between two or more parties and has been created by the court, as apposed to the law of the land which vests in you as an individual as of right. Such as your inalienable right to wager your law.

[blazing-badger]

I don't know how I can make this any clearer. A precedent is a definitive statement of the law, binding on lower courts. As such, it is the law of the land.

 

You may well have the inalienable right to take your case to court but, in deciding your case, the court will have to follow the precedent laid down by the higher courts. If there is a precedent about to be set, the courts are entitled to wait for it, in order to ensure consistency. Like I've said, there are excellent resources here for resisting a stay. But this isn't one of them, quite frankly it's just a lot of woolly words without any real meaning.

[bill65]

Pray explain to me How in English law, can the courts hear a case on the fairness of a charge clause in a private contract when that self same clause is not enforceable in a court, by what ever name you chose to call it.

[bill65]

I don't know how I can make this any clearer. A precedent is a definitive statement of the law, binding on lower courts. As such, it is the law of the land.

 

You may well have the inalienable right to take your case to court but, in deciding your case, the court will have to follow the precedent laid down by the higher courts. If there is a precedent about to be set, the courts are entitled to wait for it, in order to ensure consistency. Like I've said, there are excellent resources here for resisting a stay. But this isn't one of them, quite frankly it's just a lot of woolly words without any real meaning.

 

Can you answer my last post or are they just woolly words, this might help to make things clearer for me. Thanks

[blazing-badger]

Whether the clauses are enforceable would be a matter for the court, so obviously they would have to hear the case in order to decide whether they are enforceable or not. Clear?

[bill65]

If enforceable, the banks would have defended the claims, nor would they have payed back millions. I would say that is pretty strong evidence that the charges don't genuinely reflects the loss that flows from the breach. Therefore the test case is a cover for the real reason the banks won't defend, and that is, not only would the banks have to pay back all the charges but ipso facto render the contract voidable by way of knowingly concealing the true cost of the breach.

 

 

The offer to submit themselves to judicial challenge in the high court via the OFT is a way of circumventing the true fact of the matter being litigated and a proper examination of the industry as a whole.

 

 

You can be sure the decision has already been made over lunch.

 

 

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

 

 

 

"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages...will bear its burden without complaint, and perhaps without suspecting that the system is inimical to their best interests." - Rothschild Brothers of London, communiqué to associates in New York June 25, 1863

 

"If you want to be slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers control money and control credit.” — Sir Josiah Stamp, Director, Bank of England, 1940

 

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance." - James Madison, 4th US President

 

 

"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." - Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1790