Strange Lowell Letter

DandelionPatrol

Marktheshark wrote: »

Hogwash

I am happy to call hogwash on my post too, in order to protect your reputation

Marktheshark wrote: »

contrafactual rights.

Good, we are dirinking out of the same bottle.

Marktheshark wrote: »

A credit agreement has to be signed by a person over 18 to be enforceable period.

That requires a link to a statute law, methinks

Marktheshark wrote: »

The link you posted is actually "opinion" of a debt collecting solicitor firm

Thanks for pointing that out. The problem is that OP may face that argument in court. So to be useful, you should not waste time knocking down a strawman such as myself. You should provide the arguments which dispose of that opinion

Marktheshark wrote: »

not correct legal legislation.

Oh, so we are not drinking from the same bottle? if it is the "legal law" you must be drinking from Deputy Dawg's bottle!

I stick with my point:

But if there is a CCA, then it is not clear to me that this would play in OP's favour in court. An argument that

1. There is a CCA albeit signed while OP was [just] a minor
2. The CCA was not actively voided by the OP before reaching 18, nor for X years thereafter
3. The contract was ratified by actual borrowing after the age of 18
4. The contract was further ratified by payments towards the debt

may well carry weight in court.

And it may well carry weight in court even if it ain't the legal law or in other terms if it ain't "not correct legal legislation".

So your task is not really to demolish me as a purveyor of hogwash. Because I am not arguing about the law - I am suggesting that a line of argument could be deployed against OP and that it could be upheld in court. So again, your task is not so much to demolish me as to provide arguments which will help OP in court.

You really need to quote a statute or precedent as to why

A credit agreement has to be signed by a person over 18 to be enforceable period.

and a further basis for believing that use of that credit facility after the age of 18 does not constitute ratification of the contract.

What is important here is no so much the law, it is what will stand up in a court. OP's case might not go to court - but if it does, it is not the 'legal legislation' which matters, it is the view which prevails in court on the day. OP is unlikely to be able to take this to appeal. But if your reputation is more important to you than the consequences for OP carry on calling 'hogwash' rather than providing a reasoned and sourced argument which OP will be able to deploy, then carry on arguing.