The appellant obtained loans enabling him to buy cars by giving false information when entering into hire purchase agreements. The relevant agreement did not contain all the prescribed information and was improperly executed so that by virtue of section 65 it was only enforceable on the order of the court. The appellant had been convicted of evading an existing liability by deception with intent to make permanent default contrary to section 2(1) (b) of the Theft Act 1978. He appealed against conviction, contending that since the agreement was enforceable only on the order of the court, there was no existing liability, as there was no liability until such an order was made.
Held: The fact that under section 65(1) the agreement was only enforceable on an order of the court did not mean that there was no existing liability on the part of the debtor ‘There was an existing liability, albeit only enforceable by an order of the court. It is quite plain from s 65 that the object of that provision is that if the agreement is not properly completed, then one of the methods of the disappointed contractor enforcing his liability is removed from him. He cannot help himself. In other words he cannot retake the vehicle if it is a hire-purchase type of agreement. But the argument that no legal liability exists in the light of those matters is one which is not tenable.’
Judges:
Lord Lane CJ and Henry and Hidden JJ
Citations:
[1991] CCLR 29
Statutes:
Consumer Credit Act 1974 65, Theft Act 1968 2(1)(b)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – McGuffick 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.
Crime, Consumer
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.375746
