verbal agreement and the court.

pendulum

TellTheTruth wrote: »

Hence you can go to the seller and claim that you are entitled to 6 years warranty and they have to repair it

It gets worse...

gordikin

TellTheTruth, will you please think about changing your name to TalkingTheTripe?

TellTheTruth_2

pendulum wrote: »

It gets worse...

Is this the BEST you can offer on here? Snide comments? Well look up your rights and you will also find that it is not the manufacturer that is responsible but the seller.

And for your info, I am trying to help out using what knowledge I have learnt in life NOT through HERE but because of things I have had to go through and half the time suffer. NOW? I am not in debt (well except for having to pay £125 a month mortgage) and I pay besides that another £300 a month (or if possible £400 but not more then £500 as otherwise I will go into "penalties") into the mortgage to finish it off earlier BUT £125 is the minimum I have to pay.

So yeah...... my life is sorted. Two cars. Two motorbikes. Fishing boat. Go abroad about 4 to 5 times a year for my holidays. Money in the savings account for emergencies. Credit card fully paid every month. No other loans cos I buy everything in cash.

So as said......... the best you can give is snide remarks? Go figure out. Cos I doubt all the people giving help here are solicitors or barristers. We try to help out with the knowledge that we have. YEAH maybe might not put it correctly but we DO TRY cos if members on here are like me, they know what it is like to have been on the poverty line. On the other hand here is a snide remark from me: I have sorted my life out and I am happy with my life as I have no debt. Material things I have it all and if I do not have it is because I do not want it. So why should I bother with people who just want it all and then find they cannot afford it all??????? Do you honestly think I cannot post snide remarks on threads? How about "Well you went into the debt now suffer for it. If you could not afford it why did you get it. Ever though of using that pink stuff in your brain first?" Same as the post on this thread by Takoda and I quote "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.". Deserves to lose the money? Why? What if the person said that they did not have a paper handy and will drop the recipt off later and they never did????

So once again, keep your snide remarks to yourself. Thank you. If I post I am trying to help. And NO I am not obliged. I do it cos I want to help others not suffer in life like I had to.

Nick Smith

pendulum

Is he just letting off steam or was that a full public breakdown?

You need to chill out

olly300

screwball wrote: »

just over a year ago, my husband rented a truck from a "friend".. he paid £1400 deposit and then made monthly payments.. on the verbal agreement that if we ever gave the truck back, or couldnt pay, he would keep whatever from the deposit in lieu of money due to him.

We asked for this to be put in writing, but this was never done.

Due to money difficulties and never receiving anything in writing, we gave the truck back and agreed he would keep the deposit and we'd call it quits.

The "friend" has now taken us to court and isnt acknowledging the £1400 deposit and is requesting more in "non paid rental payments"

any help please ?? is this legally binding even though we asked for it in writing and never received it ??
many thanks for any advice

Firstly, if you make a contract with someone and they refuse to put it in writing, there is nothing at all preventing you for sending them a recorded delivery letter or an email stating that you have an agreement.

In addition you can put down some terms and asking for clarification of the terms in writing. (I don't tend to do that unless it's to my advantage to.)

As previously suggested if you can prove the person was leasing the truck i.e. the truck has the name of the company it's leased from some where on it, then state that in your defence that the person didn't own the goods lent to you, so had no right to enter into a commercial agreement with you and as it was a mates agreement they refused to give you any paperwork.

I also suggest you avoid giving the other person anything with any of your signatures on, as having personally been involved in small claims and other proceedings it's not uncommon for people to fake letters, faxes and emails.

Finally http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/tax-evasion/hotline.htm may be of interest regardless of what happens. Remember that person is not a friend (or even a good businessman) and is defrauding all taxpayers.

Tozer

TellTheTruth wrote: »

Is this the BEST you can offer on here? Snide comments? Well look up your rights and you will also find that it is not the manufacturer that is responsible but the seller.

And for your info, I am trying to help out using what knowledge I have learnt in life NOT through HERE but because of things I have had to go through and half the time suffer. NOW? I am not in debt (well except for having to pay £125 a month mortgage) and I pay besides that another £300 a month (or if possible £400 but not more then £500 as otherwise I will go into "penalties") into the mortgage to finish it off earlier BUT £125 is the minimum I have to pay.

So yeah...... my life is sorted. Two cars. Two motorbikes. Fishing boat. Go abroad about 4 to 5 times a year for my holidays. Money in the savings account for emergencies. Credit card fully paid every month. No other loans cos I buy everything in cash.

So as said......... the best you can give is snide remarks? Go figure out. Cos I doubt all the people giving help here are solicitors or barristers. We try to help out with the knowledge that we have. YEAH maybe might not put it correctly but we DO TRY cos if members on here are like me, they know what it is like to have been on the poverty line. On the other hand here is a snide remark from me: I have sorted my life out and I am happy with my life as I have no debt. Material things I have it all and if I do not have it is because I do not want it. So why should I bother with people who just want it all and then find they cannot afford it all??????? Do you honestly think I cannot post snide remarks on threads? How about "Well you went into the debt now suffer for it. If you could not afford it why did you get it. Ever though of using that pink stuff in your brain first?" Same as the post on this thread by Takoda and I quote "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.". Deserves to lose the money? Why? What if the person said that they did not have a paper handy and will drop the recipt off later and they never did????

So once again, keep your snide remarks to yourself. Thank you. If I post I am trying to help. And NO I am not obliged. I do it cos I want to help others not suffer in life like I had to.

Nick Smith

All good stuff - although I really am not sure anyone asked for a breakdown of what you do in your spare time.

I think the concern here is that you are posting really, really inaccurate advice and it is not helping anyone. I am sure you mean well, but unless you know what you are talking about it actually causes further difficulties to the OP.

There is no such thing as an "implied contract" created by "consumer rights".

As for the fact that the lessor may have been prevented from sub-leasing, well we just don't know that. True, he would not be the complete beneficial owner of the truck and so could not sell it. But there is no sale of goods here - it is a lease and providing the OP was not aware of any restriction, he would be able to take a sub-lease. Even if he wasn't able to, he would then have a complete claim against the sub-lessor for full reinstatement of money paid.

bingo_bango

TellTheTruth wrote: »

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

.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

While I have no doubt that your intentions are good, I'm afraid that the information above is at best confusing a number of issues, and at worst just plain old incorrect.

Just for reference, the pieces of legislation which will apply to a consumer contract are The Sale of Goods Act 1979 and The Sale and Supply of Goods to consumers Regulation 2002. Only the second piece of legislation will give a consumer the right to seek a repair.

On the point of six years, that is the maximum time in which you are allowed to initiate a claim under The Limitations Act 1980. That does not necessarily mean that you have the automatic right to a repair / rescission during that six year period, rather that you have the right to seek redress for that period.

You also make reference to consumer guarantees. These are now required by EU Directive for a period of two years from purchase but you will find that they rarely come close to the rights given to you under UK statute. The law in the UK has far surpassed the rest of the EU for a long time in relation to consumer rights, and it seems that will continue to be the case for a long time to come.

I realise that you want to help by offering advice. For consumer issues, I suggest you read up on the first two pieces of legislation mentioned above as this will help you to provide a more reasoned and informed opinion.

No-one posting here has the absolute answer in any case where a point of law is in question. We have courts to make those decisions. All we can do is raise arguments to those questions and hope that someone will be able to use some of those as a defence in such matters.

Remember that even informed opinion is not always wrong, it's just not always right either.

TellTheTruth_2

Right. Here is one to consider.

The "friend" hired a truck for a period of time from a company for "personal/business use" (Same as we may do from say Hertz or Avis). The "friend" found that he could not afford the payments for said hire period. The "friend" decided to "sub hire" the truck" to a third party" (being the OP).

Now UNLESS on the contract of the hire it says that the "friend" can hire at his discretion to a third party then the "friend" has broken that contract and hence that "friend" has broken the law.

Now the law of the country states that NOBODY can break the law (and before you try to ask me read your Bill of Rights) in this country and then request the right to refuge to the Court (as being the rightful power in this land to determine the law as agreed between the monarchy and the barons) for protection of their interest to something that they have done which originally broke the law.

In short, the "friend" broke the law by renting out something that was not his and he did this against the contract he had entered into in the agreement. As he broke the law he has no right to recourse to the Court to protect something, that he is not entitled to by the first instance as he has broken the law in the first place, now said complaint becomes null and void. Futhermore, the law of the land (once again read your Bill of Rights and learn what is really Law and what is simply Acts) states that he has lost all rights to make any further applications in relation to this matter.

Nick Smith

TellTheTruth_2

Oh and by the way read the difference between Laws and Acts. Laws are ONLY passed by the Queen (or if may be King) and Barons. Acts are passed by Parlament. The House of Lords does not even have the right to pass Laws.

Laws superceed Acts. Read your Bill of Rights and find what Laws really protect you.

A lot of people say "The law says this". NO. What you are saying is "The Parlament Act says this". And actually a Parlament Act is not really law. It is the equivalent of the "title" I have on here under my "nick". Am I a Money saving Convert? Heck you decided to give me that title. And Heck no I am not. So if you want to call a Parlament Act Law....... up to you. Is it? Heck no it aint.

Nick Smith.

TellTheTruth_2

Tozer wrote: »

As for the fact that the lessor may have been prevented from sub-leasing, well we just don't know that. True, he would not be the complete beneficial owner of the truck and so could not sell it. But there is no sale of goods here - it is a lease and providing the OP was not aware of any restriction, he would be able to take a sub-lease. Even if he wasn't able to, he would then have a complete claim against the sub-lessor for full reinstatement of money paid.

Lease......... well I have a 125 year lease on my property and I have a contract. So whether it was LEASE or whether it was HIRE of the van/truck there would have been conditions. One of the conditions I have on my lease (of my property) is that I cannot sublet unless I notify the management company. Doubt if it was a LEASE or if it was a HIRE on the van/truck that there was not similar.

Nick Smith