On November 18, 2015, the applicant had an accident in which her car was depreciated. The liability was immediately recognized by the defendant. While the plaintiff was waiting for a cheque from the defendant`s insurer on the pre-accident value of her vehicle, she was leasing a replacement vehicle on the terms of credit. The defendant`s insurers did not make the interim payment without delay, which led the applicant to remain in the rent for more than 4 months and to pay a rental fee of $US 20,109.60. Defendants often argue in court that a contract is not applicable because the plaintiff does not seem to understand the nature of the agreement. Under cross-examination, these accused investigate only the complainant`s understanding of the contract. What the defendants often do not question is why the plaintiff has a particular understanding of the contract. It will be interesting to see if the complainants can use this decision to successfully rebut the enforceable arguments that regularly appear in rent claims, if verbal assurances have been given that the complainants have no responsibility for the payment of taxes. Conversely, the defendants should be assured that this case does not affect their ability to execute enforceable force arguments on the basis of fraudulent misrepresentation. This is the first time that we have applied the 2008 regulations to credit contracts, but the decision is based on well-established legal principles. An appeal to the Court of Appeal is clearly possible, although the Cambridge Power judge stated that he did not believe that an appeal would have a reasonable chance of success.
The credit bureaus will no doubt review this decision and we will keep informed of developments. Failure to comply with the 2008 rules has important consequences for the merchant (in this case the credit renter). The 2008 regulations provide that the non-disclosure of the consumer`s right of withdrawal renders the contract unenforceable and also exposes the professional to a criminal penalty punishable by a fine. The court found that the plaintiff could not recover these credit charges from the defendant because the agreement between the credit laywoman and the plaintiff was not applicable. The Tribunal could not find a reason to distinguish this case from the House of Lords decision in Dimond v Lovell , in which the Tribunal held that credit charges could not be repaid because of non-compliance with the Consumer Credit Act of 1974. The applicant does not need to have read the terms of the lease to be able to enter into an enforceable contract. It was concluded in Clark/Ardington  EWCA Civ 510, point 111: three written contracts proved the recruitment agreement, which allowed for the deferring of the payment of rental fees, while retaining the applicant`s responsibility for the payment of the fees, regardless of the outcome of the claim. This article focuses on the role of poorly presented credit contracts and the circumstances under which a court will consider the contract to be unenforceable.