Tweet
Hi all
I'm new to the forum so please forgive me if posted in wrong place. I have a completely illegible copy of Marbles application form from 1999 together with T&C (claimed to be the back of of app form and therefore a executed agreement), shown by me to be from 2003 at minimum, with original interest figures either tippexed out or altered and the 'right' figues inserted by hand instead of typed (Can only be seen when magnified several times). This is now part of the claimant's exhibits. Restons witness statement claims that when originally signed the agreement would have been in pristine condition and completely legible.
I have been back to read CCA 61 (1) (c)
61 Signing of agreement
(1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless—
(c) the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible.
My question is how do I counter this argument as they seem to be correct in that it is commonsense that the document is, WHEN PRESENTED (or sent) to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible.
Any help or pointing in the right direction will be much appreciated. Thanks.
(The link to my 'agreement' is http://i49.tinypic.com/1235xu9.jpg)
I'm new to the forum so please forgive me if posted in wrong place. I have a completely illegible copy of Marbles application form from 1999 together with T&C (claimed to be the back of of app form and therefore a executed agreement), shown by me to be from 2003 at minimum, with original interest figures either tippexed out or altered and the 'right' figues inserted by hand instead of typed (Can only be seen when magnified several times). This is now part of the claimant's exhibits. Restons witness statement claims that when originally signed the agreement would have been in pristine condition and completely legible.
I have been back to read CCA 61 (1) (c)
61 Signing of agreement
(1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless—
(c) the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible.
My question is how do I counter this argument as they seem to be correct in that it is commonsense that the document is, WHEN PRESENTED (or sent) to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible.
Any help or pointing in the right direction will be much appreciated. Thanks.
(The link to my 'agreement' is http://i49.tinypic.com/1235xu9.jpg)
Comment