verbal agreement and the court.

TellTheTruth_2

Tozer wrote: »

Not so sure this works.

1. Civil courts do not have the power to declare no case to answer. That is criminal law terminlogy. OP could apply to strike out but Courts very rarely allow such actions. Besides, it will cost more to apply to strike than to defend.

2. The OP should file a defence irrespective of the responses to any letter. If necessary a "Request for Further Particulars" can be made.

3. It is not correct that an agreement has to set out certain conditions to be binding in law. A verbal agreement is of equal standing although evidentially much weaker.

4. OP is not entitled to any income tax details. It is not for OP to determine any fraud.

First I think that this is a simple Small Claims which will be in the County Court. In fact in a small claims it is very rarely that parties have to attend. It is one makes an allegation and the other party replies. Then the judge weighs his decision.

re 3: I believe that any agreement to be legally binding has to have the conditions and be signed. A mutual agreement or a Handshake agreement, is, as they say, An agreement written on water.

re 4: It is there to put a bit of "frightener" into the claimant against her. i.e. He leased a truck, he could not afford payments (shows he is finding it hard to make money). What if he did not put this as an income? As you say, the OP does not really have the right to claim this information but........... let the other person worry whether this is correct or not.

Nick Smith

TellTheTruth_2

To me, the main question is......... How much is this person claiming? Say £2,000?

Even if it was to go against the OP, what will happen? He will get a judgement saying he is owed £2,000. Is it worth for him persuing it? Or will he just have a piece of paper that is worth the equivalent of a roll of toilet paper?

Let us see opinions........... LOL.

Nick Smith
p.s. Have to go to work folks. LOL.

pitkin2020

you say he leased the truck then couldn't afford it so leased it to you, i may be wrong but if you lease a truck/car you are NOT allowed to hire it out again unless its a specific kind of lease, which as someone has said would make it more of an unofficial loan of the truck rather than a business transaction, i would tell him to stuff it and see you in court

Tozer

TellTheTruth wrote: »

First I think that this is a simple Small Claims which will be in the County Court. In fact in a small claims it is very rarely that parties have to attend. It is one makes an allegation and the other party replies. Then the judge weighs his decision.

re 3: I believe that any agreement to be legally binding has to have the conditions and be signed. A mutual agreement or a Handshake agreement, is, as they say, An agreement written on water.

re 4: It is there to put a bit of "frightener" into the claimant against her. i.e. He leased a truck, he could not afford payments (shows he is finding it hard to make money). What if he did not put this as an income? As you say, the OP does not really have the right to claim this information but........... let the other person worry whether this is correct or not.

Nick Smith

You need to go careful here as, with the utmost of respect, you are showing very little knowledge about the matter.

1. It is not very rare for parties to be required to show up in a small claims hearing. It is essential that they do in order to present the case!

2. Your point regarding contract is totally wrong. A contract can be formed verbally (e.g. buying a mars bar in a shop) and, generally, there is no requirement as to what terms must be included.

3. You shouldn't request things in an open letter that you have no right to request. Either a) you look a fool when the request is refused or b) a Court could see it as poor pre-trial conduct.

Takoda

How was the £1400 paid? If you gave the 'friend' a cheque then you have proof you paid it.

If you transferred it from your bank account to his then there will be a record.

If it was cash and you didn't get a receipt then I am afraid you are a foolish person who deserves to lose their money.

£1400 is a funny amount - why not £1500 then that would've been 3 months payments? Or £1000 which would've been 2 payments.

This all sounds fishy to me.

TellTheTruth_2

Tozer wrote: »

You need to go careful here as, with the utmost of respect, you are showing very little knowledge about the matter.

1. It is not very rare for parties to be required to show up in a small claims hearing. It is essential that they do in order to present the case!

I can only write from my own personal experience. I have been owed money and had to finally resort to a Small Claims. In none of the cases did I or the person who owed me money have to appear in Court. I would expect that if there is a contractual agreement (e.g. a loan from a bank) then yes you have to appear in Court but this is not a contractual agreement. And in the case of a Small Claims, basically all a person gets is a piece of paper that is really (well most of the time) non enforceable unless that person wants to keep on adding more costs but doing more hearings (e.g. oral examination and an attachment to earnings can cost in the region of about £1,000). A bank, or the likes of BT, Sky etc will get a DCA involved. A normal person in the street most probably (unless the debt is substantial) a DCA will not want to get involved especially if the defendant is unemployed.

Tozer wrote: »

2. Your point regarding contract is totally wrong. A contract can be formed verbally (e.g. buying a mars bar in a shop) and, generally, there is no requirement as to what terms must be included.

That is an implied contract as per the Consumer Rights.

Tozer wrote: »

3. You shouldn't request things in an open letter that you have no right to request. Either a) you look a fool when the request is refused or b) a Court could see it as poor pre-trial conduct.

Maybe not. But the person did lease a truck that he had leased in the first place most probably contrary to the lease itself. That makes it an income and he broke the lease contract in the first place.

Nick Smith

sarahg1969

If court proceedings have already been issued, then all you can do is follow the procedural timetable, and go along and tell your side of the story. The judge will then decide who he believes.

Tozer

TellTheTruth wrote: »

I can only write from my own personal experience. I have been owed money and had to finally resort to a Small Claims. In none of the cases did I or the person who owed me money have to appear in Court. I would expect that if there is a contractual agreement (e.g. a loan from a bank) then yes you have to appear in Court but this is not a contractual agreement. And in the case of a Small Claims, basically all a person gets is a piece of paper that is really (well most of the time) non enforceable unless that person wants to keep on adding more costs but doing more hearings (e.g. oral examination and an attachment to earnings can cost in the region of about £1,000). A bank, or the likes of BT, Sky etc will get a DCA involved. A normal person in the street most probably (unless the debt is substantial) a DCA will not want to get involved especially if the defendant is unemployed.

That is an implied contract as per the Consumer Rights.
Maybe not. But the person did lease a truck that he had leased in the first place most probably contrary to the lease itself. That makes it an income and he broke the lease contract in the first place.

Nick Smith

You are really mixing up all sorts of stuff here and are confusing things massively.

You have to appear in court. If you do not, the Court can decide on what to do - either adjourn or proceed with the case. It is totally wrong to suggest to the OP that attendance will not be required.

You don't get a "piece of paper" which is not enforceable. You get a "judgment" which IS enforceable!

You are talking rubbish when you say that an oral contract is "an implied contract as per the Consumer Rights. " It is an oral contract which may, or may not, imply certain warranties into the contract.

As for your last sentence, I'm afraid it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

bingo_bango

Essential elements of a contract are as follows:

OFFER: Your friend offered to rent the truck to you for an agreed deposit and monthly sum.

ACCEPTANCE: You agreed to these terms and agreed to rent from him.

CONSIDERATION: This what you give him in return for the goods / services he supplies (the truck). This is the money you pay him.

INTENTION: You must both have intended for the contract to be legally binding. As the arrangement went ahead, then you obviously both did so.

CAPACITY: I assume that were both of sound mind, and not blind drunk or mentally incapacitated at the time the contract was formed. I will also assume that you are not a minor.

You could also look at title. Does the owner of the truck have title to it, or are they leasing themselves. It is likely a term of their lease agreement that they do not sub-lease the goods unless title has passed (generally only when the goods have been bought outright, which is unlikely to be the case on a lease agreement).

Once all of these elements have been met, you have then entered into a legally binding contract.

Only contracts for credit or land / property are required to be in written form to be valid.

If you can answer yes to all of the above, then there is an enforcable contract between you and your friend. As to your defence in such a matter, that will be reliant on your recollection of all the events pre-contract, where the terms were discussed. You seem to be aware of those, so I'm afraid it is likely to be at the whim of the magistrate on the day as to how this works out for you.

Remember that the truth is all that's required here. If the judge feels that on the facts your version of the contract is the correct one, then the action will likely fail. You can do no more than that, and hope for a good result. At least if you tell the truth you can walk out with your head high.

@TellTheTruth: What exactly do you mean by 'an implied contract as per the consumer rights'?

I would be extremely grateful if you would point me in the direction of any statute which alludes to this.

TellTheTruth_2

bingo_bango wrote: »

You could also look at title. Does the owner of the truck have title to it, or are they leasing themselves. It is likely a term of their lease agreement that they do not sub-lease the goods unless title has passed (generally only when the goods have been bought outright, which is unlikely to be the case on a lease agreement).

Once all of these elements have been met, you have then entered into a legally binding contract.

And that was one of my arguments namely he had not right to lease the truck.

.

bingo_bango wrote: »

@TellTheTruth: What exactly do you mean by 'an implied contract as per the consumer rights'?

I would be extremely grateful if you would point me in the direction of any statute which alludes to this.

Implied contract is the same as if I was to go and buy a telly and for example, after say 2 years it breaks down. Although the company selling it may claim that the telly was only guaranteed for a year, there is the Consumers Rights that says that an item has to be of "worthiness" (Might have used the wrong word there). Hence you can go to the seller and claim that you are entitled to 6 years warranty and they have to repair it as a telly that cost say £800 should give more then 2 years service.

Remember that what I was referring to was the comment "You go in a shop and you buy a Mars bar".

Nick Smith