Monthly Archives: April 2015

Case Law, Definitions, Money Creation

Unconscionability

Unconscionability in English law is a field of contract law and the law of trusts, which precludes the enforcement of consent based obligations. “Inequality of bargaining power” is another term used to express essentially the same idea for the same area of law, which can in turn be further broken down into cases on duress, undue influence and exploitation of weakness. In these cases, where someone’s consent to a bargain was only procured through duress, out of undue influence or under severe external pressure that another person exploited, courts have felt it was unconscionable (i.e., contrary to good conscience) to enforce agreements. Any transfers of goods or money may be claimed back in restitution on the basis of unjust enrichment subject to certain defences.

Considerable controversy is still present over whether “iniquitous pressure” must actually be exercised by a defendant in order for a consent based obligation to be voidable. While it seems clear that in cases of undue influence the pressure need not come from the person who may lose the contract[1] it is open to debate whether circumstances exist where an obligation should be voidable simply because the person was pressured by circumstances wholly outside a defendant’s control.

One of the most prominent cases in this area is Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy[2] where Lord Denning MR advocated that there be a general principle to govern this entire area. He called the concept “inequality of bargaining power“, while the American case espousing an equivalent doctrine, Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.[3] termed the issue one of “unconscionability”. Note that Lord Denning’s approach was later rejected by the House of Lords in National Westminster Bank v Morgan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability_in_English_law

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE

 

Case Law, Definitions

Unjust Enrichment

English unjust enrichment law is part of the English law of obligations, alongside contract and tort, and property. A claim in unjust enrichment requires benefits that have been obtained by someone to be given up if it would be “unjust” to retain them. The enrichment must be “unjust” if no valid legal transaction is present, such as a contract, trust, gift or estoppel. “Restitution“, or restoration of the unjust gain, to the party to whom the enrichment came from is the main right that follows from an unjust enrichment. English courts have recognised that to found a claim there are four steps: (1) someone has to be enriched, (2) at the expense of someone else, (3) the enrichment must be unjust, and (4) there must be no defence, such as the defendant changing its position on the strength of the enrichment. Around 10 major “unjust factors” are typically recognised in English law, many of which are typically understood in contract as “vitiating factors”. If someone receives an enrichment at another’s expense, and this is a mistake, it happens with the claimant’s ignorance of the transfer, after a failure of consideration, under duress, under undue influence or exploitation, through legal compulsion, out of necessity, when the transaction is illegal, or the claimant lacks capacity or acts ultra vires, then this will found a claim, so long as no defence operates. Unjust enrichment is an action based on strict liability to return the enrichment, and may frequently work concurrently with a claim in tort. For example, if someone is forced to make a contract to transfer property, the “unjust factor” of duress will vitiate the contract. The claimant will be entitled to have their property returned, and will also have a claim in tort against the one who made the threat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_unjust_enrichment_law

Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1988] UKHL 12 is a foundational English unjust enrichment case. The House of Lords unanimously established that the basis of an action for money had and received is the principle of unjust enrichment, and that an award of restitution is subject to a defence of change of position. This secured unjust enrichment English law as the third pillar of the law of obligations, along with contract and tort.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipkin_Gorman_v_Karpnale_Ltd

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE

 

Case Law, Definitions

Negligent Misstatement

A false statement of fact made honestly but carelessly. A statement of opinion may be treated as a statement of fact if it carries the implication that the person making it has reasonable grounds for his opinion. A negligent misstatement is only actionable in tort if there has been breach of a duty to take care in making the statement that has caused damage to the claimant. There is no general duty of care in making statements, particularly in relation to statements on financial matters. Responsibility for negligent misstatements is imposed only if they were made in circumstances that made it reasonable to rely on them (Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 (HL); Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 (HL). If a negligent misstatement induces the person to whom it was made to enter into a contract with the maker of the statement, the statement may be actionable as a term of the contract if the parties intended it to be a term or it may give rise to damages or rescission under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 (see also misrepresentation).

 

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110810105454835

 

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE

Money Creation

Something for Nothing?

Money out of thin air?

Well it would appear they (the banks) cannot just do that.

There must be something to monetise in the first place.

Where can these items be verified?

Bank Of England state as per their quarterly bulletins
Quarterly Bulletin 2008 Q1 Volume 48 No. 1
Steve Baker MP house of commons debate and Hansard

Steve Baker MP at the historic debate in UK Parliament on Money Creation

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/backbench-business-committee/news/mps-debate-money-creation-and-society/

The full text of the debate is here

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm141120/debtext/141120-0001.htm#14112048000001

and here http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm141120/debtext/141120-0002.htm
These are verifiable statements on the record in the public domain.

We need to look at how the equitable arrangements of a mortgage come about.

If it can be proved as a fact that zero loan existed when your freehold was purchased, how can the alleged lender make any claim AT ALL?

What is the most that an alleged lender can claim?

Even using case law that they can take the house back before the ink is dry? (link required)

We would suggest that in “Equity” this figure could be a MAXIMUM of 50% of any alleged loan and then 100% if in fact a loan did actually take place with facts, evidence and full accounting.

This is based on an exchange of items or a swap. Your paperwork for their advance.

Where someone has been in their home for 10 years with a £100,000 “Mortgage” paying £500 per months they may have fallen behind by 2 months payments.

This is enough for the alleged lender to take possession proceedings.

As Loyd Grossman would say…..” Lets have a look at the evidence!”

If NO LOAN takes place, then any “Money” (credit) that came out of thin air because someone wrote something on a piece of paper, who is entitled to make a claim and for what?

This is where we get our 50% from. A swap or exchange of two items having the same value but a different specie of “MONEY”.

Paying the £500 per month soon tots up. That is £6000 per year and after 10 years £60,000.
The £120,000 house is now probably worth £200,000.

The alleged lender now claims that due to the fact you have not paid TWO months of £500, they want “their” house back.

In equity, where are we with this and the accounting?

I’m guessing that you already worked out that you put in quite a bit more than the bank.

Even IF they made any loan at all!

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE

Uncategorised

Equity

Links to law and equity will be added here for all items that may be deemed to have effect in a “Mortgage”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity

Here is a link to be getting on with though.

This is a major area of knowledge that is required to start to comprehend how a #VOIDMORTGAGE could be in your favour.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_%28law%29

 

In jurisdictions following the English common law, equity is the set of maxims that “reign over all the law” and “from which flow all civil laws” (Bacon). The Chancery, the office of equity, was the “office that issued the writs that were the foundation of the common law system”. (Id.; Spence, supra, at 224). Equity is wholly “unaffected by any state laws” (Pomeroy) and is “everything, even without law” (John Bouvier).

Equity is commonly said to “mitigate the rigor of common law”, allowing courts to use their discretion and apply justice in accordance with natural law. In practice, modern equity is limited by substantive and procedural rules, and English and Australian legal writers tend to focus on technical aspects of equity. Twelve “vague ethical statements”, known as the maxims of equity,[1][2] guide the application of equity, and an additional five can be added.[1]

A historical criticism of equity while it developed was that it lacked fixed rules, with the Lord Chancellor occasionally judging in the main according to his conscience. The rules of equity later lost much of their flexibility, and from the 17th century onwards, equity was rapidly consolidated into a system of precedents much like its common-law cousin.

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE

 

 

Uncategorised

Mortgages and Equity

Equity is a vast area of “Law” in this country.

How would this affect YOUR “Mortgage”?

Terminology is where you need to catch up.

A ” Mortgage” is not a loan of “Money” to buy a house.

Dont believe us? Contact your solicitor and get it in writing as to what a “Mortgage” actually.

You can start from there. This post will be added to on a regular basis, so please do pop back!

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE

Uncategorised

The Purchase Gap

Did you know the freehold of the house was yours and then you completed a deed to provide a “Mortgage” to someone else?

YOU never got a mortgage YOU gave one away!

This gap has been called the “Purchase Gap” by us at #VOIDMORTGAGE.

Re-evaluate what it is you actually thought you did and get your paperwork together.

This is a major start to the unfolding of your #VOIDMORTGAGE.

Get cracking and get your paperwork together in order.

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE

 

 

Money Creation

Offer of Loan vs Contract to be in Debt?

Which one do you believe you entered into?

What do all your offer documents refer to?

What are the elements of THE contract or YOUR deed?

If all the elements of a contract do exist then the actual content of those documents will form the primae facie case that should be put forward in any claim against you.

What is it therefore that is ACTUALLY being claimed from you?

If you had an offer of a loan where is the evidence of that completion of the contract and the bargaining that took place?

Or were you offered a deed whereby that you may have been misled by your agent which is in fact a contract to be in debt for an amount of money and this is backed up by a security placed on the property.

This being known as a type of disposition called a mortgage.

The paperwork will speak for itself if you can prove produce and identify all the elements.

You see, anyone can do a good deed for another, some may even sign a deed to confirm they will do it …

CONTRACT OR DEED?

 

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE