UK DD clawbacks and Simon Goldberg

[Tuco]

I will make it easier for you, instead of the 10 cases you claim, just post one

I tell you what Bones-You go away and PM your mates, find out what my argument is, come back and tell me & then I'll post up some case laws.

Currently, you are clueless, just like you were in the locked thread at the bottom of this page.

You post on here 10 to the dozen yet you don't really understand the issue. You're nearly as bad as that prat Henti and he can barely read or write.

[Bones]

Oh eck. Your in trouble now Bones, he is studying contract law.

What is he supposed to be proving anyway ? That it is ilegal to sell agreements .

It is a multi trillion pound industry for gods sake.

With the understanding of contract law that he as shown, I would be complaining and asking for a refund

[Bones]

I will make it easier for you, instead of the 10 cases you claim, just post one

I tell you what Bones-You go away and PM your mates, find out what my argument is, come back and tell me & then I'll post up some case laws.

Currently, you are clueless, just like you were in the locked thread at the bottom of this page.

You post on here 10 to the dozen yet you don't really understand the issue. You're nearly as bad as that prat Henti and he can barely read or write.

So to be clear, whilst you said you could name 10, you can't actually name a single one - I am starting to seriously think that you would struggle to count to 10, let alone name 10 relevant cases

[daveBeeston]

Well this thread has been derailed somewhat.

If Tuco doesn't want to provide proof of their claims then thats fine they don't have to just ignore the posts and move on with the discussion that is relevant to the thread.

Tuco if you do decide to post case law that proves your point and disproves what others here have said i will happily give you a big "you where right " post to acknowledge that you where indeed right until then you are considered wrong, is that fair enough?

[Tuco]

I will make it easier for you, instead of the 10 cases you claim, just post one

I tell you what Bones-You go away and PM your mates, find out what my argument is, come back and tell me & then I'll post up some case laws.

Currently, you are clueless, just like you were in the locked thread at the bottom of this page.

You post on here 10 to the dozen yet you don't really understand the issue. You're nearly as bad as that prat Henti and he can barely read or write.

So to be clear, whilst you said you could name 10, you can't actually name a single one

Actually, to be clear.

With the exception of Rumps, none of you even understand what the issue is.

You all come on here giving it loads, failing to realize that you don't even know the argument. That's excluding Henti, who is the internets serial misunderstander.

[Bones]

Well this thread has been derailed somewhat.

If Tuco doesn't want to provide proof of their claims then thats fine they don't have to just ignore the posts and move on with the discussion that is relevant to the thread.

Tuco if you do decide to post case law that proves your point and disproves what others here have said i will happily give you a big "you where right " post to acknowledge that you where indeed right until then you are considered wrong, is that fair enough?

You are the voice of reason and of course you are correct

[Henti]

Ladies before gentlemen Bones-You first.

Explain to us how all these originals just happen to get mislaid and can never be produced whilst the copies are guarded like they are gold in Fort Knox.

Still ducking and deflecting - just post the cases you claim support your claims - you are just getting boring now

Seriously love-Do you really need case law to show you that terms are breached if someone promises to safeguard your data and then fails to do so?

Keep on keeping on.

Not if permission is contained in the agreement signed as it will be.

[daveBeeston]

You are the voice of reason and of course you are correct

I've been called a lot of things in my time, but never the voice of reason... Im not sure how i feel about that i just know it doesn't quite sit right with me

But seriously lets not let this thread or any other here descended into an internet pissing contest, life is to short.

[Tuco]

Well this thread has been derailed somewhat.

If Tuco doesn't want to provide proof of their claims then thats fine they don't have to just ignore the posts and move on with the discussion that is relevant to the thread.

Tuco if you do decide to post case law that proves your point and disproves what others here have said i will happily give you a big "you where right " post to acknowledge that you where indeed right until then you are considered wrong, is that fair enough?

Should you require proof that if full disclosure is not given then the contract becomes voidable?

Or that if a term in the contract states that the borrowers data will be safeguarded and then subsequently it is not, then this also renders the contract voidable?

If somebody doesn't know that, then they shouldn't be commenting in the first place.

They are just being pathetic because I've shown that debts can and are avoided and that they are done so legally because of the lenders reprehensible actions. They always fall back into "proof" mode when they lose arguments. It happens every time.

[Bones]

But seriously lets not let this thread or any other here descended into an internet pissing contest, life is to short.

totally agree

Problem solved

[longdog]

By the same token, has anybody proven me wrong?

Of course I can cite case law if I want to. I don't see the need to do so given it will make no difference anyway. Nobody is going to go "fair play Tuco, you were right" are they?

I see, I see... You can cite case law if you want to but you don't want to.

I'm convinced

[Tuco]

But seriously lets not let this thread or any other here descended into an internet pissing contest, life is to short.

totally agree

Unbeleivable

You are the biggest culprit. This after stating you weren't going to respond last night.

And stop sending me PMs. I'm not interested.

[Tuco]

By the same token, has anybody proven me wrong?

Of course I can cite case law if I want to. I don't see the need to do so given it will make no difference anyway. Nobody is going to go "fair play Tuco, you were right" are they?

I see, I see... You can cite case law if you want to but you don't want to.

I'm convinced

Seeing as you have no concept of what is being debated, any case law would be lost on you in ny case.

[Henti]

Well this thread has been derailed somewhat.

If Tuco doesn't want to provide proof of their claims then thats fine they don't have to just ignore the posts and move on with the discussion that is relevant to the thread.

Tuco if you do decide to post case law that proves your point and disproves what others here have said i will happily give you a big "you where right " post to acknowledge that you where indeed right until then you are considered wrong, is that fair enough?

Should you require proof that if full disclosure is not given then the contract becomes voidable?

Or that if a term in the contract states that the borrowers data will be safeguarded and then subsequently it is not, then this also renders the contract voidable?

If somebody doesn't know that, then they shouldn't be commenting in the first place.

They are just being pathetic because I've shown that debts can and are avoided and that they are done so legally because of the lenders reprehensible actions. They always fall back into "proof" mode when they lose arguments. It happens every time.

Tuco all of the above are incorrect. You do not know what void means for instance.

As said there will be a term which enables data sharing under certain conditions.

We are talking about the legalities you seem to be talking about fmotl debt avoidance theories.

[Henti]

By the same token, has anybody proven me wrong?

Of course I can cite case law if I want to. I don't see the need to do so given it will make no difference anyway. Nobody is going to go "fair play Tuco, you were right" are they?

I see, I see... You can cite case law if you want to but you don't want to.

I'm convinced

Seeing as you have no concept of what is being debated, any case law would be lost on you in ny case.

Who is debating ? All I can see is you posting bollix and everyone else telling you so.

Anyway.I am out as Bones said getting boring.

[longdog]

Let me get this right Tuco... You claim that if you default on a loan and the loan gets passed on or sold you don't have to pay because the original creditor will have passed on personal information which is something that would have been stated they would do in the contract you signed?

Because they broke a single condition of the contract (even though they actually didn't) the whole contact is void and you don't have to pay up?

Is that right?

[Tuco]

Let me get this right Tuco... You claim that if you default on a loan and the loan gets passed on or sold you don't have to pay because the original creditor will have passed on personal information which is something that would have been stated they would do in the contract you signed?

Because they broke a single condition of the contract (even though they actually didn't) the whole contact is void and you don't have to pay up?

Is that right?

Sadly no. It is hopelessly wrong.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have never stated that an agreement is void. I have stated the agreement becomes voidable at the point at which the contract is breached (ie when a borrowers data is passed on to a 3rd party). Pleas ignore imbeciles who stalk me but cannot read or write properly.

[daveBeeston]

Let me get this right Tuco... You claim that if you default on a loan and the loan gets passed on or sold you don't have to pay because the original creditor will have passed on personal information which is something that would have been stated they would do in the contract you signed?

Because they broke a single condition of the contract (even though they actually didn't) the whole contact is void and you don't have to pay up?

Is that right?

Sadly no. It is hopelessly wrong.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have never stated that an agreement is void. I have stated the agreement becomes voidable at the point at which the contract is breached (ie when a borrowers data is passed on to a 3rd party). Pleas ignore imbeciles who stalk me but cannot read or write properly.

So from that i see that you think that when a bank/building society or other passes on a borrowers details to a 3rd party ie debt collection company that they have breached the contract and therefore is voidable.
If that is your argument then i think you need to read the terms of the loan agreement, i know the loan i took out many years ago had a section that stated if i defaulted the lender had the right to pass on my details to a 3rd party collection company.

[Bones]

So from that i see that you think that when a bank/building society or other passes on a borrowers details to a 3rd party ie debt collection company that they have breached the contract and therefore is voidable.
If that is your argument then i think you need to read the terms of the loan agreement, i know the loan i took out many years ago had a section that stated if i defaulted the lender had the right to pass on my details to a 3rd party collection company.

Such as

https://bank.marksandspencer.com/pdf/CCTC.pdf

9.
Can we transfer our rights and obligations under this
agreement?

We may transfer our rights and our obligations under this
agreement to a third party, including information about you
and how you have managed your account which the third
party needs to know. We will tell you if we do this.

http://www.hsbc.co.uk/1/PA_esf-ca-app-c ... rd-tcs.pdf

k
We may provide information about you and
the conduct of your account to any additional
cardholder and to any person to whom we transfer
our rights and obligations under this agreement.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Tuco wrote:

I have stated the agreement becomes voidable at the point at which the contract is breached (ie when a borrowers data is passed on to a 3rd party).

And no doubt you are going to post some case law that supports that claim.