hypothetical question

[Guest symbio-dek]

If someone's income were a factor in whether they got a mortgage, and it turned out that a small pork pie may have been told to inflate said persons income, such that the mortgage were granted.

As it was based on incorrect info . . . could the mortgage contract be gotten out of ?

Hypothetically of course

[Castlebest]

I think it has been general practice for many years for the small pork pie to occur during requests for mortgages, I know every time I have got a new mortgage whoever I was working for at the time always came to me when they received the questionnaire from the mortgage company to ask what I had told them .

 

I think the level of earnings is only a factor in deciding whether to offer a mortgage and doesn't form a part of the actual contract so no you couldn't use it to "get out of a contract"

[flyingdoc]

Hypothetcally of course - if you were to "tell a porky" to get a mortgage - this may be deemed misrepresentation.

 

If you could have been proved be guilty FRAUDULENTmisrepresentation then words like "obtaining money by deception" might start to be bandied about. You would also be liable for any and all losses incurred by the deception - whether forseeable or not (Smith v Newport Securities) if you were lucky and got away with only NEGLIGENT misrepresentation then you should not be criminally liable but you may still suffer rescision of contract (you have to go back to the position you were in before the contract was signed) and the other party would be entitled to award of damages.

 

If, hypothetically, ones application were not entirely hones then one would do well to keep very quiet about it.

 

My personal opinion

[Guest symbio-dek]

What if it were one of those big juicy posh lookin pies ?

And the hypothetical person had, say, proof of the pork used ?

And the mortgagee wasn't the hypothetical person that put the pork in the pie ?

[Guest symbio-dek]

What if the hypothetical persons accountant, for example, had put the pork in the pie ?

could the hypothetical person cook the accountant and get away from the pie ?

[flyingdoc]

If the mortgagee KNEW that the pork in the pie was not Kosher, and yet still went along with cooking the pie and selling it as premium then that may still be considered misrepresentation

(spice girls v Aprilla)

Half truths may also be considered so (Curtill v Chemical Cleaning Company)

[Guest symbio-dek]

What if the hypothetical person didn't know about the hypothetical accountants naughtiness, had been fooled by the accountant into the contract and wanted back into the pre-contract position ?

[Castlebest]

As I said its only a factor in deciding whether to make a mortgagee an offer or not, also as far as I'm aware the figures are always checked with your employer.

 

The mortgage contract (in fact any contract) consists of an offer and an acceptance. They have offed to loan "Hypo" £ XXXXXXX for a repayment of £YYYY per month if "Hypo" accepted it then thats a contract.

 

How the mortgage company and "Hypo" got to that stage is really irrelevant unless you can prove fraud and thats very dangerous ground

[flyingdoc]

I agree wholeheartly with castle - any contract is based on the principle of offer and acceptance. However in the case of negligent misrepresentation, all the Mortgage company has to prove is

a)the statement was made (not difficult - it will be on a form)

b)they relied on it in making the decision whether to enter into the contract (Howard Marine v Dredging Co)

 

fraud would be more difficult to prove negligent is enough to get them considerable damages

[Guest symbio-dek]

The theoretical mortgagee might stand to lose 50,000 potatoes if he cant now get out of the hot oven ! . . and is crying (hypothetically) out for assistance in this tough time . . And the naughty theoretical accountant may have broke the law (again - having had collar lifted once before )

[flyingdoc]

if the mortgagee didnt know about the accountants transgression then he may be able to sue the accountant for negligence or other.

I would suggest taking this up with a hypothetically qualified person as there are serious amounts of spuds at stake here

[Guest symbio-dek]

Hypothetical mortgagee didnt know that hypothetical accountant was selling pork pies to the lenders, until he recently aquired 'signed by hypothetical accountant' receipt for pork pies . . .

H-Mortgagee now feels like pushing pork pie salesman into oven to save the potatoes - should he ?

[Castlebest]

if the mortgagee didnt know about the accountants transgression then he may be able to sue the accountant for negligence or other.

I would suggest taking this up with a hypothetically qualified person as there are serious amounts of spuds at stake here

 

I agree with the Doc, there are a lot of spuds at stake you need to take advice form a legal hypothetical pie specialist

[Guest symbio-dek]

Thanks for your time gents . . . be cool and be happy

[skbuncks]

Hmmmmm, pork pies

 

[Gilbert_O'Sullivan]

If the mortgagee KNEW that the pork in the pie was not Kosher,

 

Not the greatest turn of phrase!

[flyingdoc]

but wholly intentional

[sequenci]

Hmm Pie. Me Like Pie.

 

I got a 68 Pie.

[locutus]

Talking of pie....

 

Weebl and Bob - captain

[gizmo111]

Most mortgage offers say what the offer is based on

eg - declared income is 1,000,000 pork pies per annum, and then it is signed by the pork pie earner as a true statement of earnings.

[Guest symbio-dek]

Accountant prepped mortgage through his broker friend, Hypothetical mortgagee just trusted and signed . . . Copy of hypothetical mortgage doesn't specify earnings amount . . .

[Castlebest]

Simple Simon met a pieman going to the fair.

said Simple Simon to the pieman let me taste your wares...

[Gilbert_O'Sullivan]

Accountant prepped mortgage through his broker friend, Hypothetical mortgagee just trusted and signed . . . Copy of hypothetical mortgage doesn't specify earnings amount . . .

 

Sounds like a self cert mortgage which was very popular up to a year or so ago and legal.

 

The mortgagee, ie the lender, trusted, signed and approved it because the application obviously passed their criteria.

 

No earnings were required to be specified. In fact you could have sent in paperwork and actually blanked out the earnings part yourself but it would still have been approved.

 

I've had several of these mortgages.

[Guest symbio-dek]

can a site team member please delete this thread . . .

[HSBCrusher]

I will lock it, but not delete it as I think it contains a useful discussion ;-).