Arrow Global vs Frost 2013

[mystery1]

Re: Arrow Global vs Frost 2013

firstly the one which we have all been waiting to come up .
That the agreement can be enforced without actually being present. This was mentioned in Carey and I think I pointed it out at the time, the judge mentioned the excerpt in the judgement, in that the act only says "was signed", if the court decides this would have happened on the balance of probability then an enforcement order can be issued and section 127(3) has no effect to barr it.

Maybe you have but some of us haven't http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2012/19.html

Secondly another point which i made over on the Brandon thread here at the time, which was that the appeal did not say that a DN which was not compliant could not be be considered as de minimiss by a court, the Brandon appeal only said that it had to be considered , as it was here, then it was judged to be of no importance..

Not all judges reach the same conclusion.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2011/23.html

M1

[gravytrain]

Re: Arrow Global vs Frost 2013

Agreed that the defendants did not help themselves , but the points the court made were all supported by cases and authority. firstly the one which we have all been waiting to come up .
That the agreement can be enforced without actually being present. This was mentioned in Carey and I think I pointed it out at the time, the judge mentioned the excerpt in the judgement, in that the act only says "was signed", if the court decides this would have happened on the balance of probability then an enforcement order can be issued and section 127(3) has no effect to barr it.
Secondly another point which i made over on the Brandon thread here at the time, which was that the appeal did not say that a DN which was not compliant could not be be considered as de minimiss by a court, the Brandon appeal only said that it had to be considered , as it was here, then it was judged to be of no importance..

As I think is the main thrust on here, best keeping out of court all together in my opinion. If you do have to, then I think that a lesson must be learned form this, technical defenses are always going to be problematic, If you are going to base a defense soley on the act then you have to have belt and braces, success stories always have a large element of prejudice attached to them, lender not shown an interest rate or not given other required information to the customer detriment. or being harassed by creditors, These are the ones that seem to be successful, especially in running credit accounts.accounts. Different to a degree on fixed sum agreements, there is room for technical defenses because most of the errors can shown with a calculator and the PTs have to be stated as a figure which can be verified with a knowledge of the TCC regulations.

[SXGuy]

Re: Arrow Global vs Frost 2013

after further reading, it seems to me they tried to rely heavily on not signing an agreement, which failed as MBNA managed to prove it must have been.

The judge had already made up his mind about them not being credible witnesses, so it stands to reason that, on balance, he was not going to side with them.

They were their own downfall in my opinion.

[SXGuy]

Re: Arrow Global vs Frost 2013

Up to now, ive only just read up to point 9. and I must say, both Frosts, did not help themselves. The judge had already formed an opinion of them, which was negative, I wonder if that would also effect the final decision.

[PlanB]

Re: Arrow Global vs Frost 2013

Arrow Global vs Frost 2013

Apologies if this is already on here, I couldn't see it.

Sadly a loss, but some important points raised

Discuss

Dare I say you're good at that

I'm afraid I have a lot to say on the subject.

[gravytrain]

Arrow Global vs Frost 2013

Apologies if this is already on here, I couldn't see it.

Sadly a loss, but some important points raised