need full court repost for branwhirte -v- worcester works finance limited [1969] 1 ac 552

[postggj]

as stated

 

i need the full undedited report on this case

 

some links would be nice

 

many thanks

[rhodium78]

Do you mean the 1968 one... in the HoL...? I have attached what I think you are after.

Branwhite v Worcester Works Finance Ltd - 1968.pdf

[postggj]

Thanks Rhodium78

 

Now This Case Law Appears To Be What Welcome Finance Are Using To Try And Get Out Of Wilson V Hurstanger And Undisclosed Commission Payments

 

i Realy Can See No Relevance

 

Any Site Team Able To Comment

[pt2537]

Thanks Rhodium78

 

Now This Case Law Appears To Be What Welcome Finance Are Using To Try And Get Out Of Wilson V Hurstanger And Undisclosed Commission Payments

 

i Realy Can See No Relevance

 

Any Site Team Able To Comment

Wilson relates to a fiduciary relationship between the broker employed by the debtor to find him the best deal, and the commission given to him by the Lender to secure the services of the lender for the debtor

 

 

It is difficult to answer a point when there is no point made, but i would say that, if you do not pay the broker a commission then you cannot blame him for getting paid by an alternate means so sto speak,

 

The status of the broker depends on the remedy available in reality, if the broker owes a duty to the debtor, then he should disclose any commission payements recieved. However, the sales man or car dealer is not an agent of the debtor, he is an agent of the lender, thus no fiduciary duty in general terms

 

Postggj its not straight forward it never is with commissions payments

 

 

Read Imageview vs Kelvin Jack that may assist in your understanding

[postggj]

many thanks

[frettful38]

Wilson relates to a fiduciary relationship between the broker employed by the debtor to find him the best deal, and the commission given to him by the Lender to secure the services of the lender for the debtor

 

 

It is difficult to answer a point when there is no point made, but i would say that, if you do not pay the broker a commission then you cannot blame him for getting paid by an alternate means so sto speak,

 

The status of the broker depends on the remedy available in reality, if the broker owes a duty to the debtor, then he should disclose any commission payements recieved. However, the sales man or car dealer is not an agent of the debtor, he is an agent of the lender, thus no fiduciary duty in general terms

 

Postggj its not straight forward it never is with commissions payments

 

 

Read Imageview vs Kelvin Jack that may assist in your understanding

 

 

Hi PT, indeed you are correct and it is not straight forward with the commissions payment neither is it trying to find out as this is what I am trying to do currently.

 

I believe that different lenders have different ways when requests for commissions are made, and it is not easy at all.

 

This is the response that I keep getting from my lender who actually want me to prove it to them that I was owed a fiduciary duty.

 

http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq223/sophiak_bucket/BFlettertosolicitors.jpg

 

 

This is another response

 

http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq223/sophiak_bucket/BFresponsetocommission.jpg

 

looks like my lender is immune to supplying me with any info, sorry if I crashed in on thread but thought that this info was important as other lenders will find any excuse for not disclosing commissions. I did do a CPR request too.

 

This is not as simple as it seems.

[postggj]

Just cracked it

 

its the old welcome smoke and mirrors again

 

this judgement is for unregulated agreements

 

so welcome can try this in court and get laughed out of it