Lender has terminated my loan in error, where do I stand

DevCoder

All the parties to the contract must assent to its rescission because mutual rescission involves the formation of a new contract.

Has the other party assented?

But as the OP is a troll/WUM (or delluded if s(he) thinks s(he) is going to win this case) I'm watching in amusement.

somethingcorporate

Thanks, I didn't know that prosecute referred to civil proceedings (nor did my solicitor wife either!) - civil in the UK tends to be claimant and defendant rather than prosecution.

If you spent a tenth of the effort in fixing your problem rather than jabbering away with us keyboard warriors on t'internet you'd have fixed it ages ago.

I still cannot see where you think you can get off scott-free... but I am not going to waste any effort looking in to it because quite frankly I don't care

I've wished you luck in what you've pointlessly turned into a crusade a number of times and I still think you'll need it.

Seriously though, you are an armchair lawyer and just because something looks like "truth" to you does not make it so. Only a judge can pass judgement on what "truth" is.

Have a nice evening.

Conrad2

redpete wrote: »

Can we just agree that Conrad has a better understanding of the law than the Lord Chief Justice and a better grasp of finance than Warren Buffet - then he might be quiet.

You just feed me such obvious things to say.

No I don't know more than them. I don't even know much at all.

But I know far, far more than you do.

But then, are you saying that they are posting on this thread. I wonder which one is who?

They won't allow that, cause they just won't, don't stand a chance in court.

DevCoder

who "don't stand a chance in court" ?

Anyone care to wager?

Conrad2

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Thanks, I didn't know that prosecute referred to civil proceedings (nor did my solicitor wife either!) - civil in the UK tends to be claimant and defendant rather than prosecution.

If you spent a tenth of the effort in fixing your problem rather than jabbering away with us keyboard warriors on t'internet you'd have fixed it ages ago.

I still cannot see where you think you can get off scott-free... but I am not going to waste any effort looking in to it because quite frankly I don't care

I've wished you luck in what you've pointlessly turned into a crusade a number of times and I still think you'll need it.

Seriously though, you are an armchair lawyer and just because something looks like "truth" to you does not make it so. Only a judge can pass judgement on what "truth" is.

Have a nice evening.

Are you telling me that your wife is reading this and agreeing with what you are posting?

If so, she ain't no solicitor mate. The idea of someone with legal qualifications providing you with consultation on what you are posting is quite ridiculous.

And that last paragraph of yours describes you, and many other posters on here to a tee. You say that things can't happen 'cause you just know it, or it can't happen cause you don't believe it. And you say that you have no wish to research anything 'cause you don't care, yet you make some very strong statements about what other people have taken time to research because they do care.

And you know what. I doubt I have put even 1% of the effort into resolving this case as I have ranting on this thread. But this thread is very entertaining, and has helped me get a lot of frustration off my chest, what with the comedy posters and all.

And of course, that less that 1% of effort has paid off beautifully.

I have informed my lender that our agreement is in rescission (not in those words, but certainly in intent), refused any further payments, and they still haven't contacted me to challenge my actions (last time I cancelled a DD, I had the lender on to me the day the payment was rejected, and they were more than happy for me to pay them by cheque and have another DD in place the following month). I am quids in. I know it. Your wife would know it. And I am expecting god round at eight tomorrow with flowers for my wife, and that oh so special apology. And I will come back here to tell you that I got off scott free. Infact, I already have, because there is as yet no dispute about rescission.

Conrad2

ILW wrote: »

In youir dreams maybe.

No mate. In UK law.

Trebles all round!

Conrad2

krisdorey wrote: »

who "don't stand a chance in court" ?

Anyone care to wager?

This isn't going to court. They are not going to risk costs and damages for a Judge to say "Mr Big Lender, you have no case. You damn'd well breached and that's a bloomin' end to it. Bring in the next one."

somethingcorporate

Haha, you overstate the value I put in providing my advice on these threads if you think I get sign-off from my wife - no she is not my babysitter or carer, I simply asked what "prosecution" referred to and we agreed that it was criminal given the terminology used by the two parties in civil disputes. In your view she may not be a solicitor but the salary she gets paid begs to differ with your view - as does her first class Juris degree from Oxford - sorry, what are your legal qualifications aside from google?

Just because you have told your lender what you think is going to happen doesn't mean they will agree and lack of contact from them could not be construed as agreement.

I will ask my wife her opinion on your stance later although she is a tax lawyer by trade.

DevCoder

Conrad2 wrote: »

This isn't going to court. They are not going to risk costs and damages for a Judge to say "Mr Big Lender, you have no case. You damn'd well breached and that's a bloomin' end to it. Bring in the next one."

I beg to differ, but then you are trolling or a wum aren't you

somethingcorporate

So I have talked to my wife and she thinks you are talking cobblers - even if this was a material breach of contract (which it likely isn't) none of the damages you are entitled to would mean you would end up not having to complete your side of the contract (paying it back), as per my assertions earlier.

She thinks the best you would be able to achieve is not getting whacked for the extra interest you would be accruing by not paying back in terms of the DD you cancelled.

Obviously it would need to come off your credit record etc.

She suggest an identical scenario: you buy a car on finance, finance company accidentally send you default notice in error and you are saying you get to keep the car and the finance company can whistle for their money. The judge would take one look at this and laugh you out of the court room.

Edit: even with you suggesting the rescission of the contract it would not put the parties in the position you are suggestion, I think you should have a look at "unjust enrichment" as you not having to repay and the bank losing their money would be precisely this and a counter to your rescission argument.
Sorry, I still think you are wrong.