Issues arose as to whether car hire agreements were exempt from regulation under the Act. They provided that payment was to be made in 12 months ‘from the start of the agreement’.
Held: The first question was whether the time by which the hirer was required to make payment coincided with the end of the period of deferment or followed it. There were not two times, but just one. As the period expired the payment became due. Was this ‘within a period not exceeding twelve months’? Yes, the period was defined as ‘not more than twelve months’ The agreement was ambiguous and was to be construed against the hire company.
Judges:
Tuckey, Jonathan Parker, LJJ, Evans Lombe J
Citations:
Times 15-Jan-2004, [2003] EWCA Civ 1828, [2004] RTR 25
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Zoan v Rouamba CA 7-Mar-2000
A document could not be construed other than in its clear words even though one party had clearly intended the result sought. A hire agreement would be unenforceable under the Act, depending upon whether payments were made within a year of the . .
Cited – Michael Ketley v Claire Nicole Gilbert CA 21-Dec-2000
A car hire agreement expressed that payment would become due ‘on the expiry of twelve months’. The form of the agreement did not comply with the Consumer Credit Act regulations. To bring the agreement within the exception provided, payment had to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Consumer, Contract
Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.193440
