Why the bank didn't want to discuss mortgage contracts

ranaihrs

struanhellier wrote: »

No, consideration is based upon the promise of money. Whether that money yet exists is entirely irrelevant

Of course it's not irrelevant. Surely you have to have the money in order to 'promise' it to someone. If the money doesn't exist before the contract, how can the promise of it be valid consideration for the contract? The money only comes into existence when the credits are applied to your account - there is no transfer of money from 'somewhere' to your account. Although, ultimately, there is a sum in your account at the end of it which you can use to buy your property, the issue is whether the bank had the money to 'promise' you in the first place, and whether this is valid consideration. A promise of money that doesn't exist seems invalid to me.

struanhellier

ranaihrs wrote: »

Of course it's not irrelevant. Surely you have to have the money in order to 'promise' it to someone. If the money doesn't exist before the contract, how can the promise of it be valid consideration for the contract? The money only comes into existence when the credits are applied to your account - there is no transfer of money from 'somewhere' to your account. Although, ultimately, there is a sum in your account at the end of it which you can use to buy your property, the issue is whether the bank had the money to 'promise' you in the first place, and whether this is valid consideration. A promise of money that doesn't exist seems invalid to me.

This is plainly nonsense. A contract is an exchange of promises. That is its definition. I can promise to make you a guitar, build your conservatory, lend you money or teach your child. In all of those cases the fact of existence or non-existence of the consideration at the time the contract is made is completely irrelevant. Does the builder have to construct the conservatory before he enters into a contract with you?

Equally, the idea that you have to have the money in order to promise it to me is absurd. There is nothing contractully illegal about you promising to pay me next time you get paid, for example - or over 25 years in the case of many mortgages.

It strikes me that you have profoundly misunderstood what a contract is.

geoffky

if some of you read what was posted you would be so angry because the money is created out of thin air...its a con trick sleight of hand move..

TEDDYRUKSPIN

My air is too thick. No wonder I don't have the cash. Blame pollution....

Let's start another topic.

Question, 'What is the meaning of life?'

geoffky

TEDDYRUKSPIN wrote: »

My air is too thick. No wonder I don't have the cash. Blame pollution....

Let's start another topic.

Question, 'What is the meaning of life?'

ASK BRIAN:rotfl::rotfl:

ranaihrs

struanhellier wrote: »

A contract is an exchange of promises. That is its definition... Does the builder have to construct the conservatory before he enters into a contract with you?

Of course, you are absolutely correct - and patently the builder does not have to construct the conservatory before entering into contract with you. Despite the fact that the contract does not contain 'full disclosure' - is it ever mentioned that it is your signature that 'creates' the money? - the consideration from the bank can never be based on anything tangible, such as gold or silver, and is therefore valueless. By the same token, bank notes are also valueless. I have a ten pound note in front of me that says, 'Bank of England: I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of ten pounds'. So, the Bank of England will give me ten pounds of - what? Just as when the builder finishes your conservatory, and you pay for the work and both promises are kept, when you pay off your mortgage your promise is kept but the bank still cannot be said to provide consideration because there is still no valid, tangible basis for the consideration.

struanhellier

But, by your argument, when I pay the builder for the work I have not kept a valid promise because the notes I give him are valueless and I have therefore not provided consideration.

The fact is that in both instances money is a convention which facillitates exchange. It therefore has value in the sense that I can purchase things with it. This is tangible and 'real' in any normal sense of the word and therefore entirely legitimate as consideration within a contract.

ranaihrs

struanhellier wrote: »

But, by your argument, when I pay the builder for the work I have not kept a valid promise because the notes I give him are valueless and I have therefore not provided consideration.

Yes, I guess that would appear to be where my argument leads.

Thank you for your replies, struanhellier, they have helped me to clarify the situation and highlighted some areas of misunderstanding - the reason I posted to begin with.

opinions4u

The best trolls don't post again on the thread.

thriftymomma

I tried to read it all and understand where you were going with it but I think I am missing the point??