Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

ps shall I start a thread on the case in the protected section? It could help others

Hiya

Do you have a thread about the legal case already? If so then it's fine cos we'll link your thread to this case law afterwards, ie lets see what happens etc first.

I'd just reply on here and help if anyone needs it....?

[PlanB]

Re: Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

Hiya

Do you have a thread about the legal case already? If so then it's fine cos we'll link your thread to this case law afterwards

No I haven't started a thread anywhere about the storecard vs credit card case yet, only my MBNA statutory demand nightmare So I'll begin this one in the 'Legal Claim Against You' area this weekend. The trial (I wish the solicitor would stop calling it that) is in January and things are hotting up. I've kept quiet because it involves the Claimant producing some less-than-honest documents with a sworn less-than-honest Witness Statement and I didn't want to get you sued for libel if I said too much

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

No I haven't started a thread anywhere about the storecard vs credit card case yet, only my MBNA statutory demand nightmare So I'll begin this one in the 'Legal Claim Against You' area this weekend. The trial (I wish the solicitor would stop calling it that) is in January and things are hotting up. I've kept quiet because it involves the Claimant producing some less-than-honest documents with a sworn less-than-honest Witness Statement and I didn't want to get you sued for libel if I said too much

Ok please do start a thread and link to this thread as the relative case law - look forward to seeing it....

You'll be fine what with Pauls mob taking care of things

[PlanB]

Re: Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

Ok please do start a thread and link to this thread as the relative case law - look forward to seeing it....

You'll be fine what with Pauls mob taking care of things

Please Sir, what's a link ? You know I'm rubbish with computers, you just like rubbing my nose in it. I'll get the thread started, then some clever mod (Pixie probably) will escort it back here

[transformer999]

Re: Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bi...umaff=C-243/08

Hi Paul, in the judgment you have attached there is a section:

2. The national court is required to examine, of its own motion, the unfairness of a contractual term where it has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that task. Where it
considers such a term to be unfair, it must not apply it, except
if the consumer opposes that non-application. That duty is also
incumbent on the national court when it is ascertaining its own
territorial jurisdiction.

When would a could be required to examine the terms & conditions of an agremeent? Before a hearing or during a hearing?

[Paul.]

Re: Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

Hi Paul, in the judgment you have attached there is a section:

2. The national court is required to examine, of its own motion, the unfairness of a contractual term where it has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that task. Where it
considers such a term to be unfair, it must not apply it, except
if the consumer opposes that non-application. That duty is also
incumbent on the national court when it is ascertaining its own
territorial jurisdiction.

When would a could be required to examine the terms & conditions of an agremeent? Before a hearing or during a hearing?

during the hearing

[transformer999]

Re: Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

Thanks Paul..........my god I was just reading the question I asked last night, and I know it was late but looks like I was a bit tipsy lol.....even though I don't drink...well not just yet, but getting close

I wrote when would a could be required???????

Paul good job you understood what I was asking.......and the answer you gave was....a could would be required to be examined during the hearing

I think anyone new reading my question may not understand, and funnything is that I forgot how to word it properly even though it is midday....mmmmmmm will have to get back on that.

Thanks Paul

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

I wrote when would a could be required???????

Paul good job you understood what I was asking.......and the answer you gave was....a could would be required to be examined during the hearing

Would that be a County Could?

[transformer999]

Re: Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

Would that be a County Could?

Hi CC I think the correct question asked should have been..........when would a court be required to examine the agreement.....

[transformer999]

Re: Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

Right, I am wanting to use this case law in my defence...and know I am going to make a tits up with wording it.....but I am going to try my best. I need to get a summary how to use this and was thinking where in my defence would it be a best place to put this? I was thinking that a short summary towards the end should be alright..unless anyone has any other suggestions please?

[Paul.]

Re: Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

All we do in defences, for example , where a default notice is bad we would say

..........The Defendant avers that the default notice is bad and therefore no enforcement is permitted. The Defendant will rely on Harrison v Link Financial as the authority for this proposition.

[transformer999]

Re: Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

Thanks Paul, hope your feeling better.

Great, got that bit...but then again my defence is much more different and complex than just arguing over a dodgy DN....and debt chasing loony tunes.

In my opinion my whole agreement is riddled with unfair terms and knowing me the way I would like to word it would be something like "Your honor...just look at this agreement and I am sure you will agree with me it is xxxxed!!!!!!!!!! but somehow I don't think that would be the right approach hey Paul?

So, have to be more ladylike and word it another way....

The Defendant avers that the agreement is has many hidden and unfair terms, and it is a one sided contract in favour of the Claimant. The Defendant will rely on Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

I know I will have to give it a few goes Paul...and I have put a lot of hard work in amending my defence...just hope I get it right this time.....

That a bit better?

[transformer999]

Re: Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

Hopefully I believe that I have found one thing...that will make the Claimant think twice about going forward now...I now understand what I did wrong and that why they were having no problems just going full steam ahead.

What I have found is a very big thing....and if I can word and use it correctly will help my defence very much and maybe the Claimant will stop and think twice.

I was handling this whole case way off track and did not focus on my main and strong points until a very good friend pointed me out to where I was going wrong.....

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

All we do in defences, for example , where a default notice is bad we would say

..........The Defendant avers that the default notice is bad and therefore no enforcement is permitted. The Defendant will rely on Harrison v Link Financial as the authority for this proposition.

As Harrison v Burke deals with a bad or improper assignment?

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

Hopefully I believe that I have found one thing...that will make the Claimant think twice about going forward now...

If nothing else, they may think twice about their pronunciation of "Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi".