question for a friend please

[Spent2much]

what section of the exchanges act of 1882 explains that if a person or company buys a personal debt from another company, they have in effect paid that debt in full for the original debtor . therefore rendering the debt unenforceable ?

thank you

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: question for a friend please

Bills of Exchange Act 1882 - Bills of Exchange Act 1882

It doesn't say what you describe, what makes you think that is the case? Wouldn't s.136 Law of Property Act 1925 be more relevant by thought of assignment?

--> Law of Property Act 1925

[Spent2much]

Re: question for a friend please

thanks niddy, i will have to wait until my friend comes to visit as i have no idea what he is talking about and if he is here then he can explain better.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: question for a friend please

thanks niddy, i will have to wait until my friend comes to visit as i have no idea what he is talking about and if he is here then he can explain better.

I kinda hinted above, tell your friend to refer to s.136 Law of Property Act, which is what assignment falls under.

[Spent2much]

Re: question for a friend please

I kinda hinted above, tell your friend to refer to s.136 Law of Property Act, which is what assignment falls under.

I will show him when he visits next, the debt he is talking about is his son's, a dca bought his son's mobile contract .

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: question for a friend please

I will show him when he visits next, the debt he is talking about is his son's, a dca bought his son's mobile contract .

I doubt that. They'll have assigned the debt in line with s.136 (see above). He's probably mis-interpreted the actual facts.

[SXGuy]

Re: question for a friend please

I know where your friend is going with this.

Its the argument used by another forum that believes you are a Freeman of the land, and the debt is owed by your strawman.

They use the Bills of Exchange Act as well as Copywrighting their Coperate Name (Mr Joe Bloggs) and send Estopels to creditors who write to them under that name.

It doesnt work in my opinion, as Niddy has just pointed out to you, there are other laws which would take president in a court.

You have to remember, we deal with Statutory Courts, which rely on Statutory Law, they will not hear anything about Freeman vs strawman, and will not want to listen to how the law is shaped since Maritime.

On a personal note, it is interesting how courts use us as the fiction and not as a human being, and technically you could try and argue that you represent your fiction as to avoid stuff, but it never works in reality.