'Four Corners'

[Fred Bassett]

From various threads on here I have read that for a credit agreement to be legally enforceable, among other things, the prescribed terms MUST be within the signature document to be valid, having them on a seperate sheet headed T&C or similar ISN'T acceptable and that this has been further refined to mean: " ....certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement."

 

Is there something definitive that shows what this actually means? For instance, can this include a document which is printed on both sides?

 

As a practical example, I have copies of agreement over 2 A4 sheets, but I have no way of knowing if this is actually 2 separate sheets or one sheet printed front and back. I presume this would make a difference because if a document is printed on both sides it still only has four corners.

 

Regards.

 

Fred

[Brassed off]

Eeee Fred, how long you been on CAG?

 

Perhaps you need to go and do some homework

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/103383-agreement-enforceability.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/105315-my-agreement-enforceable-useful.html

 

Either that or just post it up and ask the experts

 

Think this one has got missed by being in the "General" forum.

 

Your mate Bo

Edited July 16, 2008 by Brassed off
Just giving Fred some more homework lol

[Fred Bassett]

Eeee Fred, how long you been on CAG?

 

Perhaps you need to go and do some homework

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/103383-agreement-enforceability.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/105315-my-agreement-enforceable-useful.html

 

Either that or just post it up and ask the experts

 

Think this one has got missed by being in the "General" forum.

 

Your mate Bo

 

Thanks BO, you know what it's like - I've subscribed to about 200 threads but I can never find the one I want when I need it. I still can't find anything in the post you sent me about 'four corners' though.

 

Regards.

 

Fred

[Curlyben]

The way I read this is when the signature appears at the END of the document, no matter how many pages it is, so you have to at least pass the T&C's to sign the agreement.

 

I believe that a double sided agreement with signature on one side and T&C's printed on the reverse would also be applicable, but sperate T&C's with no reference between the two is wholly UNacceptable.

[Fred Bassett]

The way I read this is when the signature appears at the END of the document, no matter how many pages it is, so you have to at least pass the T&C's to sign the agreement.

 

I believe that a double sided agreement with signature on one side and T&C's printed on the reverse would also be applicable, but sperate T&C's with no reference between the two is wholly UNacceptable.

 

Thanks Curlyben, I think that has just answered my question.

 

Regards.

 

Fred

[Brassed off]

Thanks BO, you know what it's like - I've subscribed to about 200 threads but I can never find the one I want when I need it. I still can't find anything in the post you sent me about 'four corners' though.

 

Regards.

 

Fred

 

Yep, I do know what it's like, I did trawl through all my CAG info but couldn't find it either

 

The way I read this is when the signature appears at the END of the document, no matter how many pages it is, so you have to at least pass the T&C's to sign the agreement.

 

I believe that a double sided agreement with signature on one side and T&C's printed on the reverse would also be applicable, but sperate T&C's with no reference between the two is wholly UNacceptable.

 

You're back then - Clevercloggs

[Curlyben]

For those reading this that are unsure what Fred is referring to:

 

This is taken from another thread;

Under SI 1983/1553 the prescribed terms MUST be within the signature document to be valid, having them on a seperate sheet headed T&C or similar ISN'T acceptable.

SI 1983/1553 (6 Signing of agreement) which states that the prescribed terms MUST be within the signature document. (Column 2 schedule 6)

This applies to all agreements pre May 2005.

So basically this is unenforceable, under 127(3).

 

Just to add to my comments re terms witin signature doc.

This was covered off in Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299

 

Schedule 1 to the 1983 Regulations sets out the "information to be contained in documents embodying regulated consumer credit agreements". Some of this information mirrors the terms prescribed by Sch 6, but some does not. Contrasting the provisions of the two schedules the Judge said

33 In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated.

As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1.

[tifo]

SI 1983/1553 (6 Signing of agreement) which states that the prescribed terms MUST be within the signature document.

 

so application forms with no prescribed terms within the 'four corners' of the signature page are not valid agreements, as they make them out to be?

[Curlyben]

Basically yes.

[tifo]

basically or absolutely, because many of us on here only get an application form with no prescribed terms, and a separate terms and conditions document or it's on the other side?

 

the DCAs and the banks insist that this is a valid credit agreement, so is SI 1983/1553 and Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299 s.33 the absolute answer to this, so that they can say no more?

[Curlyben]

Now let me see.

What the Banks/DCA's say verses Statute Law and Law Lords precedent.

 

Hmm I wonder.

[tifo]

What the Banks/DCA's say verses Statute Law and Law Lords precedent.

 

Hmm I wonder.

 

I know, i just want you to say YES, for many of the 'newer' members here

 

Then we can all tell the DCA/bank that Curlyben told us so ...

[Curlyben]

I thought that's exactly what we were telling the Banks/DCA's.

[stapeley]

hi, great thread ! So the new legislation's corrected this loophole ? To days agreements/application forms have separate terms and conditions.

So for example I have a application form dated 2005 that is signed on the first page . The terms and conditions are not on the back of the form but in a separate leaflet. Is it that the terms and conditions should be positioned before any signature box , therefore saying these terms and conditions must be read before a document is signed ?

[Curlyben]

"Four Corners" applies to ALL pre May 2005 agreements.

After that enclosed T&C are acceptable as long as they are from the time of the account opening.

[citizenB]

I wonder if I could ask contributors to this thread to have a look here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclaycard/152498-response-trading-standards-re.html#post1619787

 

The above arguments are the very same I have used in my complaint to Trading Standards re Barclaycard. OH's account was opened in 1999. TS have responded with quite a lot of case law, which I suspect that B/Card might be intending to use.

 

Of course it could be totally irrelevant to this thread in which case, I have no objections to my post being removed.

[Curlyben]

CitB it is but no matter, good to have that link as well.

[citizenB]

CitB it is but no matter, good to have that link as well.

 

Thank you.