Default Charges in agreements & contracts

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Default Charges in agreements & contracts

Law cannot be taken out of it's jurisdiction for instance we apply British law so anything within the EU can be submitted however can you imagine if it was transferable, ie sharia law here in uk or women's rights in Muslim countries?

In answer to your question Australian law is specific to their rules and laws. It's useless in uk.

However is aus still part of our commonwealth or whatever? They share monarchy so maybe their law may well be the same as ours but I don't think so.

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Default Charges in agreements & contracts

Law cannot be taken out of it's jurisdiction for instance we apply British law so anything within the EU can be submitted however can you imagine if it was transferable, ie sharia law here in uk or women's rights in Muslim countries?

In answer to your question Australian law is specific to their rules and laws. It's useless in uk.

However is aus still part of our commonwealth or whatever? They share monarchy so maybe their law may well be the same as ours but I don't think so.

Niddy,

This was as I thought, however the bit in red is why I said message Paul.

[transformer999]

Re: Default Charges in agreements & contracts

Law cannot be taken out of it's jurisdiction for instance we apply British law so anything within the EU can be submitted however can you imagine if it was transferable, ie sharia law here in uk or women's rights in Muslim countries?

In answer to your question Australian law is specific to their rules and laws. It's useless in uk.

However is aus still part of our commonwealth or whatever? They share monarchy so maybe their law may well be the same as ours but I don't think so.

Not sure that is why I was asking Niddy.......that is why we need Paul to see if it does apply....

found this and trying to get my head around....


Law of Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has been suggested that Judiciary of Australia be merged into this article or section. (Discuss) Proposed since November 2010. The law of Australia consists of the Australian common law (which is based on the English common law), federal laws enacted by the Parliament of Australia, and laws enacted by the Parliaments of the Australian states and territories. The most important law of Australia is the Constitution of Australia, which describes Australia's system of constitutional monarchy, and forms the basis for the government of Australia.
All of the States and territories of Australia that are self-governing are separate jurisdictions, and have their own system of courts and parliaments. The systems of laws in each state are influential on each other, but not binding. Laws passed by the Parliament of Australia apply to the whole of Australia.
The organized system of law and government now in force in Australia is historically dependent for its legal validity on a series of British statutes, notably including the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. The authority of the United Kingdom Parliament to enact those statutes depended on the acquisition of the Australian continent as a territorial possession of the British Crown.
Although the laws of the Australian colonies differed from the UK in many respects from the beginnings of settlement, the underlying patterns of thought reflect the common law tradition as received from Britain.

[garlok]

Re: Default Charges in agreements & contracts

With legal issues we have within our own family (divorce) Australian Law is completely separate from the UK Law. Only certain " reciprocal arrangements" exist between the two countries, for example Child Support arrangements etc. However even pensions paid for from NI here and personal pensions saved for here in the UK but paid to the recipient in Australia are taxed and assessed under Australian tax law not UK tax law.

Australia is a completely independant sovereign country which just happens to share a common constitutional head of state. To suggest otherwise in Australia will probably get you lynched in some quarters.

There is an old saying which goes "When in Rome, do as Rome does" and I for one would not submit to something like Shariah Law applying to me whilst as a UK citizen here in the UK. I would be quite prepared to take up arms to defend British Law in that situation as would many others! I fully accept and do accept that if I travel around the world that I have to abide by the laws applying in those countries I am travelling in.

regards
Garlok

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Default Charges in agreements & contracts

^^^ Yep, cheers for clarifying mate - thought as much, but best to have other opinions - cheers

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Default Charges in agreements & contracts

^^^ Yep, cheers for clarifying mate - thought as much, but best to have other opinions - cheers

Other opinions is indeed the fruits of a good successful forum, just don't go standing under an apple tree lol

[transformer999]

Re: Default Charges in agreements & contracts

I think we need Paul to clear this up as I am getting a lot of different information and need to be sure.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Default Charges in agreements & contracts

I think we need Paul to clear this up as I am getting a lot of different information and need to be sure.

Why? Its clear as the water from my tap, Aus case law cannot be used here - as explained by myself and Garlok, Pompey etc.....

Its quite correct, Paul will only clarify what we originally thought.

[transformer999]

Re: Default Charges in agreements & contracts

Thank you Niddy...I been reading this case below which is also from the same court I was asking about:

Barton v Armstrong [1973] UKPC 2 is an English contract law case relating to duress. It held that a person who agrees to a contract under physical duress may avoid the contract, even if the duress was not the main reason for agreeing to the bargain.

Facts

Mr Barton was the managing director of a company, whose main business was in property development. Its main projects were going through ‘Paradise Waters (Sales) Pty Ltd’. Barton made a deed so the company agreed to pay $140,000 to Armstrong, and buy his shares for $180,000. Mr Armstrong was the chairman of the board.
Street J found Mr Armstrong had threatened to have Mr Barton killed. But the NSW (NEW SOUTH WALES)Court of Appeal said Mr Barton failed to discharge the onus that the threat had caused him to make the contract.

That is the same NSW Court of Appeal in the Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd v Khoshaba 2006 case.....

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Default Charges in agreements & contracts

Thank you Niddy...I been reading this case below which is also from the same court I was asking about:

Barton v Armstrong [1973] UKPC 2 is an English contract law case relating to duress. It held that a person who agrees to a contract under physical duress may avoid the contract, even if the duress was not the main reason for agreeing to the bargain.

Facts

Mr Barton was the managing director of a company, whose main business was in property development. Its main projects were going through ‘Paradise Waters (Sales) Pty Ltd’. Barton made a deed so the company agreed to pay $140,000 to Armstrong, and buy his shares for $180,000. Mr Armstrong was the chairman of the board.
Street J found Mr Armstrong had threatened to have Mr Barton killed. But the NSW (NEW SOUTH WALES)Court of Appeal said Mr Barton failed to discharge the onus that the threat had caused him to make the contract.

That is the same NSW Court of Appeal in the Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd v Khoshaba 2006 case.....

Maybe they have used it in reference but the fact their law governs usage of foreign policy doesn't apply here. We solely use English Law which is what other commonwealths use but as far as I know we only use our own, ie we can use UK or EU case law.

I could be wrong but in theory it'd open a minefield, ie as I said about things such as Sharia law and Womens rights etc......

[transformer999]

Re: Default Charges in agreements & contracts

Thanks Niddy, don't worry about sharia law....this is worse than that ...then again I live by my own law...thats my new years resolution

The case I was referring to citied

LEGISLATION CITED:
Contracts Review Act 1980: ss 7, 9
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UK)
Unfair Terms in Contract Regulations 1999 (UK)



That is why I thought that if they citied UK laws then could we...and that is what I am trying to find out for definite...as it could be really important thats all.


I have only got a few more straws left to clutch so better use them wisely...

[garlok]

Re: Default Charges in agreements & contracts

Right fine T999,

Just think on this in particular for your own case. Australian Civil Law on divorce is a TOTALLY NON CAUSAL law of 366 days separation. Under it you will be completely responsible for 50% of the total debts (and assets) of the marriage and you will have to discharge those debts (and share in the assets). If the assets do not cover (most likely) the liablilities of the marriage then you will have to pay them off on a 50/50 basis. If you wish, for example, to keep the marital home in Australia, you would be required to buy out a complete 50% share of the market value of the home from your partner.

If you fail to reach amicable agreement with your partner either by common sense and reasonable behaviour towards one another and you force a divorce into court, which is the Federal Court in Australia, then you will each be required to stump up approximately 20,000 dollars each to move the case forward.

It does not matter how unreasonable your partner has been to you, to be successful you have to demonstrate to the court that YOU have behaved in reasonable manner throughout. Spousal maintenance is NOT obligatory over there and only comes into play if there are children in minority (i.e under 18). The CSA (Child Support Agency) over there has strict rules on the amounts a spouse has to pay for child support as well. It is based on a fixed percentage of the net income (what we would call disposable income here) of the main bread winner and who gets custody.

So trying to argue Australian Law (which does not apply here) could be very detrimental to your overall circumstances. In fact you could lose everything you have set out to achieve. In fact as has happened in the case I am having to help out with in our own family over there, one party's comments on the internet and in her e-mails to the other party's lawyers are being used against her in the mediation portion of the procedure. They will almost certainly be used against her in the court. They are proof of her total unreasonableness in Ozzy law eyes.

So Ozzy law can be harsh place to be. You are all equal in the law's eyes and playing the female sympathy card does not go down well at all over the there with the courts or the lawyers whatever their sex. The male partner in the case we have has a female lawyer and to be fair she is red hot at her job.

Food for thought for you.

regards
Garlok

[transformer999]

Re: Default Charges in agreements & contracts

LOL Thanks garlok...but this thread has got nothing to do with my divorce case.

This about the repo I am going through and trying to get my defence together...really messed up ain't it? that is why I am trying to find some case laws to add in my defence...oh why don't I just shoot myself now...

[garlok]

Re: Default Charges in agreements & contracts

I do understand that T999 but as I see it clutching at straws like Australian Law and its relevance does not in my view enhance your case at all. I brought up the divorce thing only because I wanted to highlight just how different things are there particularly with respect to Civil Law. It is on the whole a much harsher climate for women as women are treated as total equals, like the female party in the case described was told by the lawyers on BOTH sides, if she wanted to live like that then she better go out and get a job, free meal tickets for life do not exist in Oz. So the climate you are wanting to bring to your own case is much harsher than you imgaine overall.

Your whole case is very complex and in the view of several of us it is necessary for you to speak to your legal representatives or to get specialist legal help. This has been suggested to you on a number of occasions.

regards
Garlok

[transformer999]

Re: Default Charges in agreements & contracts

Thanks Garlok...I had a feeling you were going to say that and like I said before I am only just seeing what I can find and yes I will talk to my solicitor about this tomorrow.

I am just thinking how are things going to plan out thats all...I mean I have 2 hearings going on at the same time. How can the court decide what to do with the house when I am in repo proceedings..but I will ask my solicitor and see what she says.

Thank you for your help...much appreciated.