Arrow Global vs Frost 2013

[gravytrain]

Re: Arrow Global vs Frost 2013

So the debtor must have raised the point. This means 2 sides are arguing over a "fact" ergo it is not a fact. The judge then decides who is right. The balance of probability is that the debtor is right because the evidence strongly suggests so.

M1

No because there is no doubt. 2 +2 remember

[gravytrain]

Re: Arrow Global vs Frost 2013

Anyway off topic. So back on track please.

[mystery1]

Re: Arrow Global vs Frost 2013

No because there is no doubt. 2 +2 remember

So on what basis does the creditor disagree, as per your example ?

M1

[SXGuy]

Re: Arrow Global vs Frost 2013

So commit contempt of court by making a false declaration

haha no, im not saying they should have made a false statement, merely saying had they had that argument they made have stood a better chance.

[gravytrain]

Re: Arrow Global vs Frost 2013

So on what basis does the creditor disagree, as per your example ?

M1

Generally they dispute what the reg say, or their interpretation don't they. They judge does not correct them based on balance of probability arguments though.

He does not say the legislation probably says this, now that would be silly .

[gravytrain]

Re: Arrow Global vs Frost 2013

Basically, in my opinion, and I could of course be wrong.

Frost would have had better luck saying, I remember signing an application but I don't recall there ever being any prescribed terms.

That would have put the burden of proof to the claimant to show there was, since neither of them could because neither no longer had a copy of the signed application carrying the prescribed terms.

There would have to be on balance proof that section 60,61 was aheard to.

The date of application would still be neither here nor there since it was discovered pretty clearly Frost was wrong.

But MBNA's system of record keeping, wouldn't have put a stop to not complying with all of the act.

EDIT: Also if I recall this was an agreement from 1998, I do believe there are a few applications from that time which made reference to sections that did not appear in any terms and conditions. My mother has one in fact from 97.

Yes I have always said that it is better to hve an incorrecty executed agreement than none at all, if you are going to ourt.

If you can show that the PTs are missing or misstated there can be no argument, no balance of probabilities, no doubt.

Failing that a positive declaration that some aspect of the agreement was not properly executed, vague recollections do not wash it seems. This would introduce doubt and the court would have to decide on the balance of probabilities who was correct.