nope the site went a bit wibble for a bit so each time you tried to re post it had already been posted in cyberspace somewhere so they've all eventually turned up
"What exists is an unenforceable unilateral contract" ............
A unilateral contract can be one of two things - a promise to the world in the form of an advertisement (eg lost dog - reward £50) or a promise between two parties over something specific - eg if you do X I will do Y. A contract between two parties regarding a mortgage, loan etc is a bilateral contract.
.............. Also from the first link:
1. Full Disclosure (we are not told that we are actually creating the credit with our signature), and
2. Equal Consideration. They bring nothing to the table, hence they have nothing to lose. ("Consideration" means 'something of value', e.g. money, or an item of value - something they are trading for your signature/promise - something they have to lose), and
3. Lawful Terms and Conditions (they are based upon fraud), and
4. Signatures of BOTH Parties/Meeting of the Minds (Corporations can't sign because they have no Right, or Mind, to contract, because they are soulless legal fictions)
.............
I'm not sure who wrote this understands English law.
Consideration does not need to be equal in a contract. As long as something passes from one party to another in consideration of a bargain (contract) then that's fine, it can be for anything you like as long as it's of value however nominal that value is.
(On that note if you've ever wondered why bankrupt or severely indebted compabies are sold for a token sum of money such as £1 when the vendor acquires the company and promises to pay off the debts then that's the reason).
If you want to know the common law leading case it's Chappell v Nestle which is cited in contract law cases involving consideration. In that case Nestle sold a record they first acquired off Chappell music as long as they received a small sum of money and importantly three wrappers from chocolate bars which were of limited value, but their existence was enough to demonstrate "consideration".
A contract to be valid under English law needs four things: offer, acceptance of that offer (proven in written contracts), consideration (as above) and there must be intent to form legal relations. You can only worm your way out of it if there is fraud or dishonesty on the part of the offeror. A contract can be made void under certain other situations but nothing I see is included in those get outs.
This garbage is akin to those halfwits in America who claim that you can avoid paying taxes because of some 'ancient law'. If you can't afford it then go without. If it is essential (such as food) the state provides but don't ask for credit and then whine when, surprise surprise, you are asked to repay. Why do some people think they can rack up debts and then expect the slate to be wiped clean???
This garbage is akin to those halfwits in America who claim that you can avoid paying taxes because of some 'ancient law'. If you can't afford it then go without. If it is essential (such as food) the state provides but don't ask for credit and then whine when, surprise surprise, you are asked to repay. Why do some people think they can rack up debts and then expect the slate to be wiped clean???
From the first link: "What exists is an unenforceable unilateral contract" ............ A unilateral contract can be one of two things - a promise to the world in the form of an advertisement (eg lost dog - reward £50) or a promise between two parties over something specific - eg if you do X I will do Y. A contract between two parties regarding a mortgage, loan etc is a bilateral contract. .............. Also from the first link: 1. Full Disclosure (we are not told that we are actually creating the credit with our signature), and 2. Equal Consideration. They bring nothing to the table, hence they have nothing to lose. ("Consideration" means 'something of value', e.g. money, or an item of value - something they are trading for your signature/promise - something they have to lose), and 3. Lawful Terms and Conditions (they are based upon fraud), and 4. Signatures of BOTH Parties/Meeting of the Minds (Corporations can't sign because they have no Right, or Mind, to contract, because they are soulless legal fictions) ............. I'm not sure who wrote this understands English law. Consideration does not need to be equal in a contract. As long as something passes from one party to another in consideration of a bargain (contract) then that's fine, it can be for anything you like as long as it's of value however nominal that value is. (On that note if you've ever wondered why bankrupt or severely indebted compabies are sold for a token sum of money such as £1 when the vendor acquires the company and promises to pay off the debts then that's the reason). If you want to know the common law leading case it's Chappell v Nestle which is cited in contract law cases involving consideration. In that case Nestle sold a record they first acquired off Chappell music as long as they received a small sum of money and importantly three wrappers from chocolate bars which were of limited value, but their existence was enough to demonstrate "consideration". A contract to be valid under English law needs four things: offer, acceptance of that offer (proven in written contracts), consideration (as above) and there must be intent to form legal relations. You can only worm your way out of it if there is fraud or dishonesty on the part of the offeror. A contract can be made void under certain other situations but nothing I see is included in those get outs.
Comments
No.
"What exists is an unenforceable unilateral contract"
............
A unilateral contract can be one of two things - a promise to the world in the form of an advertisement (eg lost dog - reward £50) or a promise between two parties over something specific - eg if you do X I will do Y. A contract between two parties regarding a mortgage, loan etc is a bilateral contract.
..............
Also from the first link:
1. Full Disclosure (we are not told that we are actually creating the credit with our signature), and
2. Equal Consideration. They bring nothing to the table, hence they have nothing to lose. ("Consideration" means 'something of value', e.g. money, or an item of value - something they are trading for your signature/promise - something they have to lose), and
3. Lawful Terms and Conditions (they are based upon fraud), and
4. Signatures of BOTH Parties/Meeting of the Minds (Corporations can't sign because they have no Right, or Mind, to contract, because they are soulless legal fictions)
.............
I'm not sure who wrote this understands English law.
Consideration does not need to be equal in a contract. As long as something passes from one party to another in consideration of a bargain (contract) then that's fine, it can be for anything you like as long as it's of value however nominal that value is.
(On that note if you've ever wondered why bankrupt or severely indebted compabies are sold for a token sum of money such as £1 when the vendor acquires the company and promises to pay off the debts then that's the reason).
If you want to know the common law leading case it's Chappell v Nestle which is cited in contract law cases involving consideration. In that case Nestle sold a record they first acquired off Chappell music as long as they received a small sum of money and importantly three wrappers from chocolate bars which were of limited value, but their existence was enough to demonstrate "consideration".
A contract to be valid under English law needs four things: offer, acceptance of that offer (proven in written contracts), consideration (as above) and there must be intent to form legal relations. You can only worm your way out of it if there is fraud or dishonesty on the part of the offeror. A contract can be made void under certain other situations but nothing I see is included in those get outs.
.
Like the Greeks you mean?
;o)
...because they're worth it!