Site icon swarb.co.uk

Eastern Distributors Limited v Goldring (Murphy, Third Party): CA 1957

The court considered the meaning of the phrase: ‘shall not be entitled to enforce’ in the section.
Held: ‘How is the present case affected by the fact that the hire-purchase agreement is unenforceable? If the Act said that it was void, then of course the character of Murphy’s possession could not be altered by it. But the Act says merely that it is to be unenforceable. This must mean that it is effective to alter the rights of the parties but that the altered rights cannot be enforced.’

Citations:

[1957] 2 QB 600

Statutes:

Hire-Purchase Act 1938 2(2)

Cited by:

CitedMcGuffick v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc ComC 6-Oct-2009
Requirements for Enforcing Consumer Loan Agreement
The claimant challenged the validity of a loan agreement with his bank as a regulated consumer credit agreement. After default, the lender failed to satisfy a request for a copy of the agreement under section 77. The bank said that though it could . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Consumer

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.375745

Exit mobile version