MSE News: Mortgage blow as building society hikes SVR

Thrugelmir

howardtheduck wrote: »

(or the braindead like Thrugelmir and Vigliant22) end up actually believing your fallacies.

Whilst your legal skills are unquestionable. Your constant snipes do little more than make you sound like a boy whose had his ball confiscated by a teacher in the playground. If you are in the legal professional as you say you are, grow up and behave like one. Quack Quack you do little to enhance the image of your choosen profession. So maybe try and have a little more charm and personality when posting.

Interesting how the thread has progressively exposed the self interest of those complaining the most. Seems that in reality the parties complaining the most, are playing for high stakes. So maybe one should question whether their legal skills are similarly matched to those of a financial nature.

I shall now crawl back under my stone, where the undead reside.

Dan_1976

LOL Thrugelmir, post of the day!

Howardtheduck went to law school so is better than everybody else, you sure your not an MP howardtheduck?

So, can anybody tell me, how the case against the Skipton is actually getting on?

MarkyMarkD

Or rather, how it isn't.

howardtheduck

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Whilst your legal skills are unquestionable. Your constant snipes do little more than make you sound like a boy whose had his ball confiscated by a teacher in the playground. If you are in the legal professional as you say you are, grow up and behave like one. Quack Quack you do little to enhance the image of your choosen profession. So maybe try and have a little more charm and personality when posting.

Interesting how the thread has progressively exposed the self interest of those complaining the most. Seems that in reality the parties complaining the most, are playing for high stakes. So maybe one should question whether their legal skills are similarly matched to those of a financial nature.

I shall now crawl back under my stone, where the undead reside.

Don't you mean crawl back under your stone where the braindead reside?

"What do you mean I can't claim for my duck house?"

howardtheduck

"Legal privilege protects the client (Skipton) from having to disclose its legal advice, if it doesn't wish to do so."

---

Why thank you MarkyMarkD for that concise, cogent and enlightening explanation of legal privilege. I had no idea that legal privilege exists to protect the client from having to disclose legal advice received. Thank you for that uniquely useless post.

---

"I won't respond to the rest of HtD's daft comments. He can say what he likes about me".

---

Ever the martyr eh MarkyMarkD? How very noble of you to aspire to the moral high ground.

---

"But all of his comments are from an entirely academic perspective and don't recognise the commercial reality of operating as a regulated entity, as Skipton have to."

---

Entirely academic and oh yes, 100% FACTUALLY CORRECT.

(sigh)

Still defending the indefensible eh MarkyMarkD? You just don't know when to quit do you? I do admire your persistence though, as misguided and blinkered as it is. You sir, are a "true believer".

MarkyMarkD

Oh, how surprised am I that Howard ignores the point which highlights that he is blathering and continues personal attacks?

You can be "factually correct" from an academic perspective whilst being 100% "factually wrong" in terms of how the real world works, but he wouldn't appreciate that as he clearly doesn't dwell in the real world.

Howard's on 'ignore' from now on. Helpful hint for others - click on any user's name and you have the option to 'ignore' them which means you don't have to read their nonsense posts.

howardtheduck

Further to Thames Valley Power Limited -v- Total Gas & Power Limited [2005] EWHC 2208, the recent case of Tandrin Aviation Holdings Ltd v Aero Toy Store LLC [2010] EWHC 40 (Comm) confirms the principle in Thames Valley Power that a tightening of credit markets cannot generally constitute an event of force majeure. This well-known principle applies even in an extreme economic downturn e.g. the Bank of England base rate being its lowest rate in its 315 year history.

Aero Toy Store’s principal defence in that case was based on the “unanticipated, unforeseeable and cataclysmic downward spiral of the world’s financial markets” which it claimed had triggered the force majeure clause in the sale agreement.

Hamblen J in Tandrin Aviation quite rightly referred to the fact that it has long been settled law that a change in economic and/or market circumstances which affects the profitability of a contract or the performance of parties’ obligations will not be regarded as being a force majeure event. In short, the law should not, and must not, be allowed to relieve Skipton Building Society of an unprofitable or bad deal.

JPS29

Could anybody clarify for me (in laymens terms) the need to be included in a group action.
I have put my cards on the table from the start so people know I have 2 mortgages with Skipton Group and I am affected by the rate change. What I don't understand is whether I need to join the group action set up by the law firm challenging this. At the moment they are asking all members for £100 to cover costs, but my fear is this may rise each step of the process. Also what's the benefit of being in the group action as opposed to not. If through court action there is a ruling for or against Skipton then would this not have to apply to all the Skipton customers not just the ones that joined the group action?
Cheers

JPS29

Anyone? .

MarkyMarkD

I would suggest that there is the usual "free rider" problem applying here.

In other words, lots of people who might benefit if the legal action is successful - whether or not they contribute - won't bother contributing, because those who contribute won't get any more than those who don't.

I've previously expressed the view that the FSA would not allow Skipton to simply settle the claims of those involved in any legal action whilst ignoring the implications of any judgement for others in similar positions. If you accept my argument in that regard, then you won't benefit by participating in the legal action - except that, if you don't, the legal action may not get anywhere due to lack of resources.