On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:51:42 GMT, John Anderton
wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:41:24 +0200, abelard
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:55:05 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>The law has always been so. Debt is debt which is always available for
>>>recovery unless the debtor is protected by a bankruptcy order.
>>>
>>>Taking out an unsecured loan does not absolve the debtor from his
>>>obligations. If he defaults for above a statutory minimum and his
>>>creditor finds that he has assets then he may seek an order from the
>>>County Court and send in the bailiffs
>
>>
>>looks like at least sharp practice to me....
>
>That depends on your point of view. How much effort should the lender
>go to to make sure the debtor understands the agreement ? If a debtor
>enters into an "unsecured loan" agreement, shouldn't they make sure
>they understand it before signing on the dotted line ?
well, yes...but people taking such loans are not generally
einstein's cousins....
they are known approximate idiots
the assumption of 'equality' is worse than dubious
>As an aside, just how many people are there out there that think that
>an unsecured loan is one you don't have to pay back if you don't want
>to ? (which is what you seem, to me, to be implying an unsecured loan
>is) Why would *anyone* ever pay it back and why would anyone lend
>under those terms ?
now now...i just feared someone would take that line.....
but i'm implying no such thing....
meanwhile i have in the back of my attic that homes have special
status in law...or did...
this 'law' seems to negate that
>>you give an unsecured loan....you charge far higher interest...
>> that is insurance against the proportion that fail to fully
>> service the loan
>
>That depends what you mean by "fail to fully service the loan". If you
>mean "don't keep up with payments and have no assets", then, yes,
>you're right. If you mean "don't keep up with payments but have
>assets", then no.
ok....i'm starting from the actions of the lender and the courts....
not the foolishness of the borrower...
see above....
>>you take a secured loan against 'your' house...you get far lower
>> interest rates...
>
>>this practice has got to be gaining money under false pretences
>
>I don't see how. The definition of the terms "secured/unsecured loan"
>are easily available. If the debtor doesn't bother to check or doesn't
>understand then that's not "false pretences"
the difference looks clear to me.....but i'm not a lawyer nor
am i innumerate....
i'm working from ordinary english...not some esoteric lawyerspeak!
if lawyers use words with highly non-standard meaning on the great
unwashed, those without even a gcse to their name....
then any misunderstanding would be fraud in my use of english...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |