Some more of my rambliings about this............why don't we all look at the law of Estopell with a view to using it to prevent creditors from reconstructing credit agreements.........I am certain there is quite a bit of mileage in this to by pass Wacksman ruling .....just a thought.
I had a credit agreement with the BOS long finished now about 3 years.........but each time I asked for full true copy of it ( I had the original) they sent me two others that were absolutely and utterly different from each other and the first one (original) and stated each time that they were my original credit agreement, which proves Wacksman ruling rubbish......the true copies he said could be accepted can be reconstructed from a different one, which isn't the debtors real one..............when I have more time I'll post copies of these "TRUE" agreements .........it proves the Banks are conning the Courts.
The three are completely different
If Estopell is used in conjuction with section 140B (9) of the Consumer Credit Act Unfair Relationhip......it could be said that it is unfair that a creditor could pick and choose which one of their credit agreements they can reconstruct to suit their purposes........there are many computaions that could arise from this approach.
Misrepresenation, Forgery,Fraud,just because they are a bank and big hitters does not mean they would stoop so low because we all know they can and do............that's why quite a few of are in Jail now and there are quite a few more that should be.
Last edited by sparkie1723 : 02-10-2010 at 09:49 AM.