An Old, Old Debt
Steve Clarke
somewhat unusual.
Many years ago I worked for a company which gave interest free car loans as
an employee benefit. I took one out but, about 15 months into the 4-year
loan period, I moved on to another job. I was expecting them to reclaim the
balance of the loan on my departure but they never did. All this happened 15
years ago and I have heard no more of it since. The car is long gone!
Now I have been offered some work which will bring me into contact with this
former employer (but not in a direct working relationship). There is a
remote possibility this might trigger them into looking back into their
files and potentially spotting the outstanding debt.
My question therefore is, "Is there some sort of Statute of Limitations" on
such debts? Could they sue me for the outstanding amount? Given that I left
them in 1990, could they apply 15 years' notional interest on the debt and,
if they didn't, could the tax man claim 15 year's tax on the benefit of the
free interest?
The company is based in England and so am I.
All help appreciated
Steve Clarke
Alex Heney
wrote:
Yes, there is a general limitation of 6 years since you last
acknowledged the debt or paid anything towards it.
This is set by the Limitations Act 1980.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If it's too loud, you're too old.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Steve Clarke
"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:8m7ak11n77bes9n5n...@4ax.com...<snip>
>>My question therefore is, "Is there some sort of Statute of Limitations"
>>on
>>such debts? Could they sue me for the outstanding amount? Given that I
>>left
>>them in 1990, could they apply 15 years' notional interest on the debt
>>and,
>>if they didn't, could the tax man claim 15 year's tax on the benefit of
>>the
>>free interest?
>>
>
> Yes, there is a general limitation of 6 years since you last
> acknowledged the debt or paid anything towards it.
>
> This is set by the Limitations Act 1980.
Alex you hero!
Thanks
Steve Clarke
Peter Crosland
>> Yes, there is a general limitation of 6 years since you last
>> acknowledged the debt or paid anything towards it.
>>
>> This is set by the Limitations Act 1980.
Just remember that if you acknowledge the debt the clock goes back to zero
and they have another six years!
Peter Crosland
Steve Clarke
"Peter Crosland" <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:434526e7$0$15069$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
How does one do that (without meaning to)?
Steve Clarke
John
news:4345...@212.67.96.135...
>
> "Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:8m7ak11n77bes9n5n...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 13:47:53 +0100, "Steve Clarke" <do...@spam.me>
>> wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>> Yes, there is a general limitation of 6 years since you last
>> acknowledged the debt or paid anything towards it.
>>
>> This is set by the Limitations Act 1980.
>
> Alex you hero!
>
> Thanks
>
> Steve Clarke
I believe the debt doesn't automatically cease after 6 years but it
becomes no longer enforceable through the courts. They can still ask
for payment until you inform them of the Limitation Act.
programmer
Like you have done just now by acknowledging the debt in a public forum.
fred
writes
How about:
"I know I owe you the money but as it's over six years old you can't chase
me for it"
--
fred
John
news:3qkohqF...@individual.net...
Only if the debt is acknowledged at any time during the 6 years. After
that he can shout it from the rafters.
Steve Clarke
Of course I have ;-)
Steve Clarke
Steve Clarke
"fred" <n...@for.mail> wrote in message news:EqFB2BAxxSRDFw8r@y.z...
Presumably that would be in response to an "Oi - you owe us some money!"
What is a more advisable response?
Steve Clarke
Sponge Bob Square Pants
> Presumably that would be in response to an "Oi - you owe us some money!"
>
> What is a more advisable response?
>
> Steve Clarke
"No I don't", in this case ignorance is bliss.
--
SBSP
Alex Heney
wrote:
No he hasn't.
You have to send something in writing to the people you owe it to,
saying that you accept you owe the money.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Don't confuse me with facts, my mind's already made up!
Alex Heney
wrote:
>
You have to send something in writing to the people you owe it to,
saying that you accept you owe the money.
Section 30 of the Act says:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
30 Formal provisions as to acknowledgments and part payments
(1) To be effective for the purposes of section 29 of this Act, an
acknowledgment must be in writing and signed by the person
making it.
(2) For the purposes of section 29, any acknowledgment or payment--
(a) may be made by the agent of the person by whom it is
required to be made under that section; and
(b) shall be made to the person, or to an agent of the
person, whose title or claim is being acknowledged or,
as the case may be, in respect of whose claim the
payment is being made.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So it isn't easy to do it by accident.
And AIUI, once the six years has elapsed without acknowledgment or any
payment, acknowledging it later does *not* make it enforceable again.
Section 19(7) of the Act says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(7) Subject to subsection (6) above, a current period of limitation
may be repeatedly extended under this section by further
acknowledgments or payments, but a right of action, once barred
by this Act, shall not be revived by any subsequent
acknowledgment or payment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Meets quality standards: compiles without errors.
Alex Heney
wrote:
Indeed.
They can always *ask* for repayment. The question is whether they can
enforce it.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
It's not hard to meet expenses, they're everywhere!
Alan Hope
>All help appreciated
Just two questions:
1. What on earth makes you think you don't still owe them money?
2. If they ask for it, will you give up your job or risk your
employer losing work rather than pay?
--
AH
Steve Clarke
"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:tbeak1t588k1llip8...@4ax.com...
> Just two questions:
>
> 1. What on earth makes you think you don't still owe them money?
1) They've never asked for it back.
2) It was a long time ago.
Remember this is uk.legal not uk.moral
> 2. If they ask for it, will you give up your job or risk your
> employer losing work rather than pay?
Can you rephrase that into one or more questions that I can actually
understand?
Steve Clarke
Peter Crosland
>>>> acknowledged the debt or paid anything towards it.
>>>>
>>>> This is set by the Limitations Act 1980.
>>
>>
>> Just remember that if you acknowledge the debt the clock goes back to
>> zero and they have another six years!
> How does one do that (without meaning to)?
You still owe the money but the SOL means that the debt is no longer legally
enforceable. If they wrote you asking if you agreed that you did that would
restart the SOL clock as it were. So if they do ask just deny it. It is not
unknown for this to happen and for people to fall into the trap.
Peter Crosland
Alex Heney
<g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Yes, there is a general limitation of 6 years since you last
>>>>> acknowledged the debt or paid anything towards it.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is set by the Limitations Act 1980.
>>>
>>>
>>> Just remember that if you acknowledge the debt the clock goes back to
>>> zero and they have another six years!
>
>> How does one do that (without meaning to)?
>
>You still owe the money but the SOL means that the debt is no longer legally
>enforceable. If they wrote you asking if you agreed that you did that would
>restart the SOL clock as it were.
No it wouldn't.
>So if they do ask just deny it. It is not
>unknown for this to happen and for people to fall into the trap.
>
It is not unknown for people to pay up on the *threat* of legal
action, even though the debtee knows full well that such legal action
would be certain to fail.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Luxuriantly hand-crafted from only the finest ASCII.
bigbrian
wrote:
>"Steve Clarke" <do...@spam.me> wrote in message
Does anyone know if the same think applies to secured debts? I know
someone who incurred a debt with a former employer, who subsequently
secured a charging order over her house. This would have been more
than 6 years ago, during which time there has been no correspondence
of any kind between the parties.
Brian
Alex Heney
wrote:
The limitation is 12 years in that case, rather than 6.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
URA Redneck if you own a homemade fur coat.
Alan Hope
>"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
>news:tbeak1t588k1llip8...@4ax.com...
>> Just two questions:
>> 1. What on earth makes you think you don't still owe them money?
>1) They've never asked for it back.
>2) It was a long time ago.
>Remember this is uk.legal not uk.moral
I'm asking why *you think* you don't still owe that money, not what
you think you can get away with.
So how come you don't owe the money any more?
>> 2. If they ask for it, will you give up your job or risk your
>> employer losing work rather than pay?
>Can you rephrase that into one or more questions that I can actually
>understand?
If the question arises, and the professional relationship looks like
being jeopardised (you rather coyly failed to be clear what the
relationship is), would you prefer to lose the job or finally pay back
what you certainly borrowed but never paid back at the time?
In other words, to what lengths will you go to avoid paying your
debts?
--
AH
bigbrian
wrote:
So the charging order become unenforceable after 12 years?
Brian
The Todal
Interesting recent House of Lords decision on limitation where a lender has
foreclosed:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd050630/brom-1.htm
The building society had sold the house and was trying to sue the borrowers
for the shortfall, more than 12 years later. They did their best to argue
that their claim wasn't statute barred. The borrowers won.
Mr X
>Apologies if this has been asked before but I think my circumstances are
There is a six year limitation upon collecting debts in the
circumstances you describe but there is no time limit on a guilty
conscience.
--
Mr X
The Todal
"bigbrian" <harr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c8hak15g9rime97a8...@4ax.com...
See the Lords judgment I referred to in my earlier post. Time probably
starts to run when the borrower falls into arrears and a demand for payment
is made, and the debt then becomes enforceable after 12 years (though I
can't claim to have read the judgment with great care and you might say it's
more complicated than that).
Steve Clarke
> Steve Clarke goes:
>
>>"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
>>news:tbeak1t588k1llip8...@4ax.com...
>
>>> Just two questions:
>
>>> 1. What on earth makes you think you don't still owe them money?
>>1) They've never asked for it back.
>>2) It was a long time ago.
>
>>Remember this is uk.legal not uk.moral
>
> I'm asking why *you think* you don't still owe that money, not what
> you think you can get away with.
>
> So how come you don't owe the money any more?
...and I'm asking you why you think this is relevant on uk.legal.
I'm not trying to ascertain my moral position on this one only my legal one.
>
>>> 2. If they ask for it, will you give up your job or risk your
>>> employer losing work rather than pay?
>
>>Can you rephrase that into one or more questions that I can actually
>>understand?
>
> If the question arises, and the professional relationship looks like
> being jeopardised
You're way off topic now.
> (you rather coyly failed to be clear what the relationship is),
Why should I? It isn't relevant.
> would you prefer to lose the job or finally pay back
> what you certainly borrowed but never paid back at the time?
Off topic.
> In other words, to what lengths will you go to avoid paying your
> debts?
None of your business. All I was trying to find out was if I still actually
had a debt. Those people who have posted legal opinions have been most
helpful.
You, on the other hand, have been uniquely unhelpful.You haven't told me
anything I couldn't have worked out for myself.
Are you a troll who gets a kick out of forcing posters to consider the moral
ramifications of their legal enquiries?
Steve Clarke
Steve Clarke
"Mr X" <Mr...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:NuofeKAj...@privacy.net...
> There is a six year limitation upon collecting debts in the
> circumstances you describe but there is no time limit on a guilty
> conscience.
You're wandering into Mr Hope's territory here.
I have no guilty conscience. If they are clumsy and inefficient enough not
to pursue such a debt for so long why should I feel guilty? The conditions
of lending were all theirs so my position has always been to cough up as and
when asked. I have not been asked and, in the mean time, 15 years have
elapsed.
Steve Clarke
Alan Hope
>"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
>news:g3gak11875ms2c4gn...@4ax.com...
>> Steve Clarke goes:
>>>"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:tbeak1t588k1llip8...@4ax.com...
>>>> Just two questions:
>>>> 1. What on earth makes you think you don't still owe them money?
>>>1) They've never asked for it back.
>>>2) It was a long time ago.
>>>Remember this is uk.legal not uk.moral
>> I'm asking why *you think* you don't still owe that money, not what
>> you think you can get away with.
>> So how come you don't owe the money any more?
>...and I'm asking you why you think this is relevant on uk.legal.
All sorts of things are relevant on uk.legal. I sense you're trying to
dodge the question. One wonders why.
>I'm not trying to ascertain my moral position on this one only my legal one.
Yes but you see, I'm not bound by your agenda. I have my own thoughts,
and that's what I'm posting, see?
So in what sense do you think you no longer owe money to people who
loaned you money that you didn't repay?
>>>> 2. If they ask for it, will you give up your job or risk your
>>>> employer losing work rather than pay?
>>>Can you rephrase that into one or more questions that I can actually
>>>understand?
>> If the question arises, and the professional relationship looks like
>> being jeopardised
>You're way off topic now.
Never mind that. Answer the question.
>> (you rather coyly failed to be clear what the relationship is),
>Why should I? It isn't relevant.
Sez you. You're not a very good interview suspect, I mean subject, are
you? You have guilt written all over you.
>> would you prefer to lose the job or finally pay back
>> what you certainly borrowed but never paid back at the time?
>Off topic.
So what? Answer the question.
>> In other words, to what lengths will you go to avoid paying your
>> debts?
>None of your business. All I was trying to find out was if I still actually
>had a debt. Those people who have posted legal opinions have been most
>helpful.
Did you borrow money?
Did you pay it back?
There's the answer to your question. You still owe the money.
Whether the creditor can get it out of your desperate little grasp is
another matter.
>You, on the other hand, have been uniquely unhelpful.You haven't told me
>anything I couldn't have worked out for myself.
Including the fact that you're stiffing someone who loaned you money,
and are for that reason not even slightly trustworthy.
>Are you a troll who gets a kick out of forcing posters to consider the moral
>ramifications of their legal enquiries?
Do you need a troll to do that for you? Seems to me you do.
Most normal people know their moral obligations without being
badgered. Pretty shitty to be a pathetic little money-grubber like
you.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>I have no guilty conscience. If they are clumsy and inefficient enough not
>to pursue such a debt for so long why should I feel guilty?
Because you owe them money, and you haven't paid it.
The loan contract was after all a two-way agreement.
But of course you're more concerned with getting away with it, not the
rights and wrongs.
When the man spoke of "guilty conscience" he was no doubt wrongly
assuming he was addressing someone who had a conscience in the first
place.
I bet if the old lady in Oxfam gives you too much change when you're
buying your clothes, you just pocket it, don't you?
--
AH
bigbrian
wrote:
AIUI, there was no arrears as such - she was sacked by her employer
for alleged dishonesty, with the employer subsequently bringing an
action in the county court for recovery of the monies. She wasn't able
to pay (she already had another debt outstanding with a bank who also
have a charge on her house, IIRC) so the former employer secured a
charging order. I believe the effect of these orders is that when she
tries to sell her house, the Land Registry notify the chargeholders
who will then naturally seek to recover their debt from the proceeds
of sale. I was just wondering whether after 12 years, this would cease
to be a problem for her
Brian
Alan Hope
>On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 16:10:19 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
><g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> Yes, there is a general limitation of 6 years since you last
>>>>>> acknowledged the debt or paid anything towards it.
>>>>>> This is set by the Limitations Act 1980.
>>>> Just remember that if you acknowledge the debt the clock goes back to
>>>> zero and they have another six years!
>>> How does one do that (without meaning to)?
>>You still owe the money but the SOL means that the debt is no longer legally
>>enforceable. If they wrote you asking if you agreed that you did that would
>>restart the SOL clock as it were.
>No it wouldn't.
>>So if they do ask just deny it. It is not
>>unknown for this to happen and for people to fall into the trap.
>It is not unknown for people to pay up on the *threat* of legal
>action, even though the debtee knows full well that such legal action
>would be certain to fail.
Perhaps they're paying up because unlike Mr. Clarke, they recognise
that they did in fact borrow money and have not paid it back, and to
do other than pay it back is tantamount to theft, and at any rate very
slimy behaviour indeed.
Do you look for loopholes when deciding what's right and wrong? I pity
you.
--
AH
Mr X
>"Mr X" <Mr...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:NuofeKAj...@privacy.net...
>
>> There is a six year limitation upon collecting debts in the
>> circumstances you describe but there is no time limit on a guilty
>> conscience.
>
>You're wandering into Mr Hope's territory here.
Hey lighten up! It's nearly Friday!
>I have no guilty conscience.
I think you should have. At the very least I think you have been
dishonest over this debt.
> If they are clumsy and inefficient enough not
>to pursue such a debt for so long why should I feel guilty?
As above.
To me the feeling of a guilty conscience comes across strongly in your
first post.
--
Mr X
The Todal
>
> To me the feeling of a guilty conscience comes across strongly in your
> first post.
He could probably salve his conscience by saying to the company "although I
no longer have the letters and paperwork I'm not sure whether I ever repaid
that car loan" to which the reply would almost certainly be "what, fifteen
years ago? All our accounting records have been destroyed for that period so
we cannot now tell whether or not you did repay it. Thanks for offering, no
need to pay us anything ".
Mike_B
<sp...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>Steve Clarke wrote:
>> "Peter Crosland" <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:434526e7$0$15069$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> acknowledged the debt or paid anything towards it.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is set by the Limitations Act 1980.
>>>
>>>
>>> Just remember that if you acknowledge the debt the clock goes back
>>> to zero and they have another six years!
>>>
>>
>> How does one do that (without meaning to)?
>>
>
>Like you have done just now by acknowledging the debt in a public forum.
>
>
Once statute barred, always statute barred. Once you are over the 6
years you can go to the creditor and shout in his face an admission that
you owe him the money and the debt sill still be statute barred.
Acknowledgement can only happen within the limitations period.
--
Mike_B
Mike_B
<harr...@hotmail.com> writes
Once a judgement has been entered and a charging order made the
Limitations Act has no effect.
--
Mike_B
Steve Clarke
>>> So how come you don't owe the money any more?
>
>>...and I'm asking you why you think this is relevant on uk.legal.
>
> All sorts of things are relevant on uk.legal. I sense you're trying to
> dodge the question. One wonders why.
"One" being you. No-one else.
>
>>I'm not trying to ascertain my moral position on this one only my legal
>>one.
>
> Yes but you see, I'm not bound by your agenda. I have my own thoughts,
> and that's what I'm posting, see?
My agenda is to ignore you.
Rest of petty exchange snipped.
Is he always like this?
Steve Clarke.
Steve Clarke
> In article <4345...@212.67.96.135>, Steve Clarke <do...@spam.me> writes
>
>>"Mr X" <Mr...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>news:NuofeKAj...@privacy.net...
>>
>>> There is a six year limitation upon collecting debts in the
>>> circumstances you describe but there is no time limit on a guilty
>>> conscience.
>>
>>You're wandering into Mr Hope's territory here.
>
> Hey lighten up! It's nearly Friday!
>
>>I have no guilty conscience.
>
> I think you should have. At the very least I think you have been
> dishonest over this debt.
No more dishonest than the (extremely large) corporation has been in not
bothering to terminate the loan properly.
>
>> If they are clumsy and inefficient enough not
>>to pursue such a debt for so long why should I feel guilty?
>
> As above.
>
> To me the feeling of a guilty conscience comes across strongly in your
> first post.
No guilt at all. Just caution.
Would you feel guilty about standing on someone's toe if you were an ant and
he were an elephant?
Steve Clarke.
Steve Clarke
"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:3ql38jF...@individual.net...
>
> "Mr X" <Mr...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:ePWL2BAZ...@privacy.net...
>>
>> To me the feeling of a guilty conscience comes across strongly in your
>> first post.
>
> He could probably salve his conscience by saying to the company "although
> I no longer have the letters and paperwork I'm not sure whether I ever
> repaid that car loan"
There WAS no paperwork.
I didn't ignore a demand or do a runner. They know how to find me even now.
I simply waited for a letter requesting payment and never got one.
> to which the reply would almost certainly be "what, fifteen years ago? All
> our accounting records have been destroyed for that period so we cannot
> now tell whether or not you did repay it. Thanks for offering, no need to
> pay us anything ".
:-)
Steve Clarke
Mr X
>No more dishonest than the (extremely large) corporation has been in not
>bothering to terminate the loan properly.
You are confusing dishonesty with incompetence
>Would you feel guilty about standing on someone's toe if you were an ant and
>he were an elephant?
Size doesn't matter (8->)
Anyway good luck with your new assignment
--
Mr X
Steve Clarke
Thanks Mr X
BTW I've been looking for my old pay slips. Just in case they sneaked it out
of my final pay-packet in any case. It would explain a lot.
Mr C
Alex Heney
wrote:
Well yes, but most of the ones who are going to pay it back will not
have left a 6 year gap between any payments or acknowledgment.
>Do you look for loopholes when deciding what's right and wrong? I pity
>you.
No.
But I don't presume to judge others who do either. Except that I would
probably not chooses to do business with them :-)
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Mercifully free of the ravages of intelligence
Alex Heney
wrote:
>On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 16:43:35 +0100, "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"bigbrian" <harr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
<snip>
s.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The limitation is 12 years in that case, rather than 6.
>>>
>>> So the charging order become unenforceable after 12 years?
>>
>>See the Lords judgment I referred to in my earlier post. Time probably
>>starts to run when the borrower falls into arrears and a demand for payment
>>is made, and the debt then becomes enforceable after 12 years (though I
>>can't claim to have read the judgment with great care and you might say it's
>>more complicated than that).
>
>AIUI, there was no arrears as such - she was sacked by her employer
>for alleged dishonesty, with the employer subsequently bringing an
>action in the county court for recovery of the monies. She wasn't able
>to pay (she already had another debt outstanding with a bank who also
>have a charge on her house, IIRC) so the former employer secured a
>charging order. I believe the effect of these orders is that when she
>tries to sell her house, the Land Registry notify the chargeholders
>who will then naturally seek to recover their debt from the proceeds
>of sale. I was just wondering whether after 12 years, this would cease
>to be a problem for her
>
That is a different thing entirely, and AFAIK, that never expires.
With that type of order, the creditor effectively owns that much value
of the total house, and are entitled to their share on sale, whenever
it happens.
I thought you were talking about loans secured on the house, and
intended to be paid back over a period of time.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Help stamp out, eliminate, and abolish redundancy!
Alex Heney
wrote:
>
Yes.
He is very much holier-than-thou, and tends to be pretty blunt (even
obnoxious) about it.
But he is basically right. You *do* still owe them the money. The fact
they cannot enforce the debt through the courts does not mean it
doesn't exist.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Circular logic will only make you dizzy. - Peri
Mike Harrison
>On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 16:10:19 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
><g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Yes, there is a general limitation of 6 years since you last
>>>>>> acknowledged the debt or paid anything towards it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is set by the Limitations Act 1980.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just remember that if you acknowledge the debt the clock goes back to
>>>> zero and they have another six years!
>>
>>> How does one do that (without meaning to)?
>>
>>You still owe the money but the SOL means that the debt is no longer legally
>>enforceable. If they wrote you asking if you agreed that you did that would
>>restart the SOL clock as it were.
>
>No it wouldn't.
>
>>So if they do ask just deny it. It is not
>>unknown for this to happen and for people to fall into the trap.
>>
>
>It is not unknown for people to pay up on the *threat* of legal
>action, even though the debtee knows full well that such legal action
>would be certain to fail.
Wouldn't this be obtaining money by deception...?
Alan Hope
>>>No it wouldn't.
I suppose not. So even age and maturity are not enough to make some
people embrace honesty. Shocking state of affairs.
>>Do you look for loopholes when deciding what's right and wrong? I pity
>>you.
>No.
No, I don't doubt you don't, Heney. I've come across you. You seem a
straight enough bloke. Not like our crooked little welsher Steve
Clarke.
>But I don't presume to judge others who do either. Except that I would
>probably not chooses to do business with them :-)
Quite so. Or indeed turn your back while your suitcase was standing
beside you. He'd be off with it like a shot, thieving little fucker.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
>news:bbjak1tk84t46a9js...@4ax.com...
>> Steve Clarke goes:
>>>"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
>>>> So how come you don't owe the money any more?
>>>...and I'm asking you why you think this is relevant on uk.legal.
>> All sorts of things are relevant on uk.legal. I sense you're trying to
>> dodge the question. One wonders why.
>"One" being you. No-one else.
You wish. I'm standing up and saying it. Everyone else is making sure
their wallet is still in their inside pocket while you're around.
>>>I'm not trying to ascertain my moral position on this one only my legal
>>>one.
>> Yes but you see, I'm not bound by your agenda. I have my own thoughts,
>> and that's what I'm posting, see?
>My agenda is to ignore you.
Do it, then. And ignore the vestigial conscience you're bound to
retain some traces of, while you're at it.
>Rest of petty exchange snipped.
>Is he always like this?
Why do you think you're entitled to a free car loan at someone else's
expense? Who do you think paid for your car in the end, Clarkey? It
wasn't you, so who was it?
--
AH
Alan Hope
>"Mr X" <Mr...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:ePWL2BAZ...@privacy.net...
>> In article <4345...@212.67.96.135>, Steve Clarke <do...@spam.me> writes
>>>"Mr X" <Mr...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>>news:NuofeKAj...@privacy.net...
>>>> There is a six year limitation upon collecting debts in the
>>>> circumstances you describe but there is no time limit on a guilty
>>>> conscience.
>>>You're wandering into Mr Hope's territory here.
>> Hey lighten up! It's nearly Friday!
>>>I have no guilty conscience.
>> I think you should have. At the very least I think you have been
>> dishonest over this debt.
See how it's not just me, Stevie?
Most people are fundamentally honest. They will give back the extra
change, in actual fact.
Difficult for you to fathom, I realise.
>No more dishonest than the (extremely large) corporation has been in not
>bothering to terminate the loan properly.
So it's okay to steal from X, it's only bad when you're stealing from
Y.
And the corporation, of course, was trying to rip you off by not
chasing you up for debt payments you wouldn't dream of making
voluntarily because you, er, owe the money fair and square.
>>> If they are clumsy and inefficient enough not
>>>to pursue such a debt for so long why should I feel guilty?
>> As above.
>> To me the feeling of a guilty conscience comes across strongly in your
>> first post.
>No guilt at all. Just caution.
You're one of those who doesn't care about doing what's right, just
about getting caught.
>Would you feel guilty about standing on someone's toe if you were an ant and
>he were an elephant?
You ripped off some money that wasn't your own. Do you think you get
to choose? If it belongs to an old lady, I have to pay it; if it
belongs to a faceless corporation, I don't.
Who do you think made up the money you stole in the end, Stevie? It
must have come from somewhere. We already know it didn't come from
you. So who paid for the car you were pretending you owned?
--
AH
Alan Hope
>On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 19:04:27 +0100, "Steve Clarke" <do...@spam.me>
>wrote:
>>Is he always like this?
>Yes.
>He is very much holier-than-thou, and tends to be pretty blunt (even
>obnoxious) about it.
Heney, you've no more idea that theft-boy here what I'm like, though
you could easily look in Google and find out to what extent you're
completely talking out of your arse.
>But he is basically right. You *do* still owe them the money. The fact
>they cannot enforce the debt through the courts does not mean it
>doesn't exist.
See now? That's all I'm saying. But do you see me calling you
obnoxious?
--
AH
Steve Robinson
"Mike Harrison" <mi...@whitewing.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ji7bk19k1tndfrq3o...@4ax.com...
no its obtaining money owed
Steve Clarke
> You ripped off some money that wasn't your own. Do you think you get
> to choose? If it belongs to an old lady, I have to pay it; if it
> belongs to a faceless corporation, I don't.
Hold on - I have done no such thing!
The original loan was paid in installments by virtue of a deduction from my
paypacket.
When the paypackets stopped I assumed that paying back the loan would be a
part of the process of terminating my employment. I had a large final
paypacket as I have time in lieu. They could have deducted the balance there
and then but this never occurred. So I waited, and waited, and eventually
forgot - as presumably did they.
> Who do you think made up the money you stole in the end, Stevie?
I have stolen nothing. Did you even read the original post?
> It must have come from somewhere. We already know it didn't come from
> you.
Unless you consider that my 5 years previous service may have in some way
helped make the company more profitable
>So who paid for the car you were pretending you owned?
You could say that about any loan not completely unpaid.
Steve Clarke
Steve Clarke
> You *do* still owe them the money. The fact
> they cannot enforce the debt through the courts does not mean it
> doesn't exist.
Unless, of course, they've written it off.
Steve Clarke
Alex Heney
wrote:
No.
The debtor still owes the money.
The creditor can *take* legal action to recover it, he just will not
succeed in court.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I was going to procrastinate, but I put it off....
Alex Heney
wrote:
>Alex Heney goes:
>
>>On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 19:04:27 +0100, "Steve Clarke" <do...@spam.me>
>>wrote:
>
>>>Is he always like this?
>
>>Yes.
>
>>He is very much holier-than-thou, and tends to be pretty blunt (even
>>obnoxious) about it.
>
>Heney, you've no more idea that theft-boy here what I'm like, though
>you could easily look in Google and find out to what extent you're
>completely talking out of your arse.
I'm just talking about what I see here.
You probably just see it as straight talking. But at times, it can be
a bit *too* straight.
>
>>But he is basically right. You *do* still owe them the money. The fact
>>they cannot enforce the debt through the courts does not mean it
>>doesn't exist.
>
>See now? That's all I'm saying. But do you see me calling you
>obnoxious?
Ah, but I haven't been calling him a welcher, and describing him as
slimy.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
We're all in the same boat: I fish, you row.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>
>"Mr X" <Mr...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:ePWL2BAZ...@privacy.net...
>> In article <4345...@212.67.96.135>, Steve Clarke <do...@spam.me> writes
>>
>>>"Mr X" <Mr...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>>news:NuofeKAj...@privacy.net...
>>>
>>>> There is a six year limitation upon collecting debts in the
>>>> circumstances you describe but there is no time limit on a guilty
>>>> conscience.
>>>
>>>You're wandering into Mr Hope's territory here.
>>
>> Hey lighten up! It's nearly Friday!
>>
>>>I have no guilty conscience.
>>
>> I think you should have. At the very least I think you have been
>> dishonest over this debt.
>
>No more dishonest than the (extremely large) corporation has been in not
>bothering to terminate the loan properly.
>
Huh?
What an utterly ridiculous thing to say.
You *know* you still haven't paid them what you agreed to. While they
have apparently forgotten about it. And you somehow think that makes
them as dishonest as you?
Remind me never to do business with you.
>>
>>> If they are clumsy and inefficient enough not
>>>to pursue such a debt for so long why should I feel guilty?
>>
>> As above.
>>
>> To me the feeling of a guilty conscience comes across strongly in your
>> first post.
>
>No guilt at all. Just caution.
>
>Would you feel guilty about standing on someone's toe if you were an ant and
>he were an elephant?
>
If I had agreed not to stand on his toe, then yes.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If only women came with pulldown menus and online help.
Mike_B
<mi...@whitewing.co.uk> writes
Not in my opinion, as any legal action threatened CAN actually be taken.
The view that such legal action would be certain to fail only applies if
the debtor actually knows they have a defence and issues one.
--
Mike_B
Mike_B
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 19:04:27 +0100, "Steve Clarke" <do...@spam.me>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
>>news:bbjak1tk84t46a9js...@4ax.com...
>>> Steve Clarke goes:
>>>
>>>>"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>>> So how come you don't owe the money any more?
>>>
>>>>...and I'm asking you why you think this is relevant on uk.legal.
>>>
>>> All sorts of things are relevant on uk.legal. I sense you're trying to
>>> dodge the question. One wonders why.
>>
>>"One" being you. No-one else.
>>
>>>
>>>>I'm not trying to ascertain my moral position on this one only my legal
>>>>one.
>>>
>>> Yes but you see, I'm not bound by your agenda. I have my own thoughts,
>>> and that's what I'm posting, see?
>>
>>My agenda is to ignore you.
>>
>>Rest of petty exchange snipped.
>>
>>Is he always like this?
>>
>
>Yes.
>
>He is very much holier-than-thou, and tends to be pretty blunt (even
>obnoxious) about it.
>
>But he is basically right. You *do* still owe them the money. The fact
>they cannot enforce the debt through the courts does not mean it
>doesn't exist.
To be fair to the OP, there are plenty of other newsgroups where he
could have discussed the moral position. He came to a legal group
presumably because he wanted to find his legal position and Alan Hope
lecturing on the morality of the issue isn't helpful in that respect.
--
Mike_B
Mr X
>
That is the most likely scenario.
--
Mr X
Alan Hope
>To be fair to the OP, there are plenty of other newsgroups where he
>could have discussed the moral position. He came to a legal group
>presumably because he wanted to find his legal position and Alan Hope
>lecturing on the morality of the issue isn't helpful in that respect.
He got the legal position within one or two posts.
It would be nice and comfortable, of course, if you could post in the
knowledge that no-one will raise any thorny questions of morality,
conscience, obligation, ethics and so on. But those are not divorced
from the legality either in the real world or in this one. For the
time being, until you're finally given complete charge of who can and
cannot post, I'll raise whatever questions I see fit. The OP can
answer or not as he wishes, and that will no doubt be taken into
account.
--
AH
Alan Hope
If they do that, and you know about it, your debt will disappear.
Until then, though, you still owe them money.
A self-respecting man would pay what he owes.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
>news:dk7bk1ha3gvkk0rbn...@4ax.com...
>> You ripped off some money that wasn't your own. Do you think you get
>> to choose? If it belongs to an old lady, I have to pay it; if it
>> belongs to a faceless corporation, I don't.
>Hold on - I have done no such thing!
>The original loan was paid in installments by virtue of a deduction from my
>paypacket.
>When the paypackets stopped I assumed that paying back the loan would be a
>part of the process of terminating my employment. I had a large final
>paypacket as I have time in lieu. They could have deducted the balance there
>and then but this never occurred. So I waited, and waited, and eventually
>forgot - as presumably did they.
You forgot you had bought your car with someone else's money. Pull the
other one, pal.
I suppose if you see a wallet in the street you assume it's yours
because the owner can't be arsed or is too inefficient to pick it up.
>> Who do you think made up the money you stole in the end, Stevie?
>I have stolen nothing. Did you even read the original post?
Do you have something that doesn't belong to you? Are you not here
trying to find a way to avoid giving it back to the rightful owner?
>> It must have come from somewhere. We already know it didn't come from
>> you.
>Unless you consider that my 5 years previous service may have in some way
>helped make the company more profitable
I take it you received a wage of some sort.
>>So who paid for the car you were pretending you owned?
>You could say that about any loan not completely unpaid.
Yes indeed. So how do you propose paying off the loan?
Oh that's right, isn't it? You propose not paying off the loan, and
you'd like to know what your chances are of getting away with it.
Well, you have your answer. The courts won't bother you. And since you
have no conscience, that won't bother you either.
You're off scot-free. Congratulations.
--
AH
Steve Clarke
> Oh that's right, isn't it? You propose not paying off the loan, and
> you'd like to know what your chances are of getting away with it.
>
> Well, you have your answer. The courts won't bother you. And since you
> have no conscience, that won't bother you either.
...and, guess what, you don't bother me either!
Steve Clarke
Mike_B
<not.al...@mail.com> writes
Nobody attempted to tell you whether you can or cannot add a post.
Merely commented on the fact that your post was irrelevant and unhelpful
to someone who wanted their legal position. Of course you have the right
to continue to post irrelevant answers.
--
Mike_B
Alan Hope
Oh yes, I can see that.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>Nobody attempted to tell you whether you can or cannot add a post.
>Merely commented on the fact that your post was irrelevant and unhelpful
>to someone who wanted their legal position.
Your comment was most irrelevant and unhelpful. It might benefit you
in future to shut the fuck up when nobody asked your opinion.
>Of course you have the right
>to continue to post irrelevant answers.
Of course.
--
AH
John Burke
Alan Hope writes
>> Mike_B goes:
>>> To be fair to the OP, there are plenty of other newsgroups where he
>>> could have discussed the moral position. He came to a legal group
>>> presumably because he wanted to find his legal position and Alan
>>> Hope lecturing on the morality of the issue isn't helpful in that
>>> respect.
>> He got the legal position within one or two posts.
Not a very assuring thread for any public reading a legal newsgroup.
Maybe I should move on from when stealing was once a crime?
JB
Peter Mulloy
> So in what sense do you think you no longer owe money to people who
> loaned you money that you didn't repay?
Just as a moral point. All business transactions are subject to the law and
have been made between the parties on that basis. If the "debt" is no
longer enforceable due to legal reasons, then it is no longer a debt.
If you do not like the law, we live in a democratic society and you are free
to write to your MP, to try to get the law changed.
Peter Mulloy
> It would be nice and comfortable, of course, if you could post in the
> knowledge that no-one will raise any thorny questions of morality,
> conscience, obligation, ethics and so on. But those are not divorced
> from the legality either in the real world or in this one.
I just do not see that a question of morality arises here.
The money was loaned by a business with full knowledge (or access to full
knowledge) of the law. This was the choice of the business. If for
whatever reason the law states that the OP does not have to repay that
money, then there is no longer a debt.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>"Alan Hope"
>> So in what sense do you think you no longer owe money to people who
>> loaned you money that you didn't repay?
>
>Just as a moral point. All business transactions are subject to the law and
>have been made between the parties on that basis. If the "debt" is no
>longer enforceable due to legal reasons, then it is no longer a debt.
That is simply false.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Useless Invention: Brake oil.
Alex Heney
Joe Lee
"Mike_B" <use...@localhosts.net> wrote in message
news:hhDy3ZAB...@localhosts.net...
Even if the debtor were to defend the action on the basis of "I just don't
have any money", & it subsequently went to trial, then surely the action
would fail as the Court are bound to uphold the SOL. We saw a demonstration
of this yesterday when the Claim against 'the lottery millionaire' was
thrown out due to being time-barred.
Joe Lee
> --
> Mike_B
Mike Ross
wrote:
>Mike_B goes:
>
>>Nobody attempted to tell you whether you can or cannot add a post.
>>Merely commented on the fact that your post was irrelevant and unhelpful
>>to someone who wanted their legal position.
>
>Your comment was most irrelevant and unhelpful. It might benefit you
>in future to shut the fuck up when nobody asked your opinion.
I think that's precisely what you've just been told! <laughs>
Pot? It's kettle on line 1...
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Mike_B
Lee <nos...@this.address> writes
>>
>> Not in my opinion, as any legal action threatened CAN actually be taken.
>> The view that such legal action would be certain to fail only applies if
>> the debtor actually knows they have a defence and issues one.
>
>
>Even if the debtor were to defend the action on the basis of "I just don't
>have any money", & it subsequently went to trial, then surely the action
>would fail as the Court are bound to uphold the SOL. We saw a demonstration
>of this yesterday when the Claim against 'the lottery millionaire' was
>thrown out due to being time-barred.
>
I would have anticipated that if a defence such as "I don't have any
money" were issued then the claimant would request summary judgement on
the basis that it wasn't a defence.
--
Mike_B
Mike_B
<not.al...@mail.com> writes
>
>Your comment was most irrelevant and unhelpful. It might benefit you
>in future to shut the fuck up when nobody asked your opinion.
>
In message <nu8ck19cnsr323pl7...@4ax.com>, Alan Hope
<not.al...@mail.com> writes
>For the time being, until you're finally given complete charge of who
>can and cannot post, I'll raise whatever questions I see fit.
--
Mike_B
Mike_B
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 23:42:07 +0100, "Peter Mulloy" <no_...@spam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"Alan Hope"
>>> So in what sense do you think you no longer owe money to people who
>>> loaned you money that you didn't repay?
>>
>>Just as a moral point. All business transactions are subject to the law and
>>have been made between the parties on that basis. If the "debt" is no
>>longer enforceable due to legal reasons, then it is no longer a debt.
>
>That is simply false.
There is no longer a legally enforceable debt. The law is there for a
reason and one person's moral dilemma is another persons giggle on a
Saturday night in the pub. Fact is, once the limitations period has
passed then the debt no longer exists on credit reference files, cannot
be enforced through the court and all the creditor can do is write you
letters which they wont do for very long once you have shown them you
are aware of the legal position. For all practical purposes, the debtor
can continue as if no debt exists.
--
Mike_B
Cynic
wrote:
>"Alan Hope" wrote
I see. So if someone were to lend you some money, knowing that with
no written contract in place there is little chance of him taking you
to court should you default, you would have no moral obligation to
repay?
--
Cynic
Cynic
wrote:
>"Alan Hope"
>> So in what sense do you think you no longer owe money to people who
>> loaned you money that you didn't repay?
>
>Just as a moral point. All business transactions are subject to the law and
>have been made between the parties on that basis. If the "debt" is no
>longer enforceable due to legal reasons, then it is no longer a debt.
You misunderstand. The debt still exists. It has merely become
unenforceable.
Morality and law are two entirely diffent things. Many judgements in
law are morrally wrong, and many immoral acts are untouchable by the
law.
--
Cynic
The Todal
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fg4fk11rs85k948hf...@4ax.com...
Brings to mind the report at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4321402.stm
A rape victim decided to try to sue her attacker on learning that he had
recently acquired a lot of money. Her claim has rightly been ruled statute
barred (I think I predicted that here, ages ago) and her solicitor flannels
about how he intends to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal and to
the House of Lords if necessary (he has absolutely no chance) and now the
government is thinking of changing the law.
I can't see how you could change the law and not cause a lot of injustice
and inconvenience, merely to address this minor problem of the occasional
criminal having the occasional windfall of money - better to have some sort
of law confiscating the assets of criminals for a given period of time after
their crime, and spending some of that money on helping the victims, but not
affecting the general rule on limitation for civil debts.
Peter Mulloy
"Cynic" wrote
>>I just do not see that a question of morality arises here.
>>The money was loaned by a business with full knowledge (or access to full
>>knowledge) of the law. This was the choice of the business. If for
>>whatever reason the law states that the OP does not have to repay that
>>money, then there is no longer a debt.
>
> I see. So if someone were to lend you some money, knowing that with
> no written contract in place there is little chance of him taking you
> to court should you default, you would have no moral obligation to
> repay?
Nice try.
But your example is another issue entirely, as it relies on lack of evidence
in order to evade the law.
Given your example, if we both went to court, told the whole truth, I would
have to repay the money.
With the OP's case, lack of evidence (like witnesses or a written contract)
is not the issue, the law states that he no longer has to repay the money
given. So both parties can go the court and tell the whole truth and the OP
will not have to repay the money.
Cynic
wrote:
>Nice try.
>But your example is another issue entirely, as it relies on lack of evidence
>in order to evade the law.
>Given your example, if we both went to court, told the whole truth, I would
>have to repay the money.
>
>With the OP's case, lack of evidence (like witnesses or a written contract)
>is not the issue, the law states that he no longer has to repay the money
>given. So both parties can go the court and tell the whole truth and the OP
>will not have to repay the money.
OK, try this one - you win £100 at the horse races and the bookie
refuses to pay up. You would say that there is no moral obligation
for him to do so because the law states that gambling debts are
unenforceable?
--
Cynic
Peter Mulloy
"Cynic" wrote
>>With the OP's case, lack of evidence (like witnesses or a written
>>contract)
>>is not the issue, the law states that he no longer has to repay the money
>>given. So both parties can go the court and tell the whole truth and the
>>OP
>>will not have to repay the money.
>
> OK, try this one - you win £100 at the horse races and the bookie
> refuses to pay up. You would say that there is no moral obligation
> for him to do so because the law states that gambling debts are
> unenforceable?
Yes I would, because when placing the bet, I know he is under no obligation
to pay out, it was my choice whether to place the bet or not. Personnally
knowing this, I excercise my choice not to bet within the UK.
I may disagree with this law, but while it remains the law, the rules are
known and we can adjust our actions in accordance to the rules of the land.
The problem with morals is that they are personnel, Mr.A may have different
morals to Mr.B. If people rely on their own moral beliefs, they are likely
to feel let down when they find out after the event that other party has
different values. However the law applies to all, regardless of their values
or background. The law is known and predictable (at least in the most part)
and is the best system we have.
Alan Hope
But the law does not say that, does it?
--
AH
Peter Mulloy
As was established within the first few posts, the law states that the OP
does not have to repay the money.
Therefore morally, the company released the OP from any obligation when the
period of six years expired without resquesting the money back.
Alan Hope
I'm offering a bit of advice. You can take it or leave it.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
>news:7kffk1lq3dt88sejs...@4ax.com...
>> Peter Mulloy goes:
>>>"Alan Hope" wrote
>>>> It would be nice and comfortable, of course, if you could post in the
>>>> knowledge that no-one will raise any thorny questions of morality,
>>>> conscience, obligation, ethics and so on. But those are not divorced
>>>> from the legality either in the real world or in this one.
>>>I just do not see that a question of morality arises here.
>>>The money was loaned by a business with full knowledge (or access to full
>>>knowledge) of the law. This was the choice of the business. If for
>>>whatever reason the law states that the OP does not have to repay that
>>>money, then there is no longer a debt.
>> But the law does not say that, does it?
>As was established within the first few posts, the law states that the OP
>does not have to repay the money.
That's not at all what was established.
>Therefore morally, the company released the OP from any obligation when the
>period of six years expired without resquesting the money back.
Not in the least. You must surely see there's a difference between
morals and law. The law, for example, places no obligation on me to be
faithful to my wife. Elsewhere, the law obliges me to cross the road,
if I must cross the road, at a designated crossing-place. You cannot
be saying that it's not immoral to cheat on one's wife, but it is
immoral to jaywalk.
Or perhaps you can. I've seen people bend over backwards and crawl up
their own fundaments trying to show how they were right all along --
and especially where hanging onto some cash is concerned.
--
AH
Peter Mulloy
"Alan Hope" wrote
>>> But the law does not say that, does it?
>
>>As was established within the first few posts, the law states that the OP
>>does not have to repay the money.
>
> That's not at all what was established.
Yes it was, as more than 6 years had expired, the debt was legally written
off (could not be enforced).
>>Therefore morally, the company released the OP from any obligation when
>>the
>>period of six years expired without resquesting the money back.
>
> Not in the least. You must surely see there's a difference between
> morals and law. The law, for example, places no obligation on me to be
> faithful to my wife.
Why should it, your relationship is for you to sort out. If both you and
your wife choose to have an "open" relationship, that is quite correctly
your choice.
> Elsewhere, the law obliges me to cross the road,
> if I must cross the road, at a designated crossing-place.
If that is the case, then it is moral to follow that rule, as a motorist may
rely on that rule being followed and you may cause damage to him or his
property if you do not follow that rule.
If it is custom to drive on the left of the road, then it is moral to follow
that rule, to prevent harm to others. In the USA you would be expected to
drive on the right, so it would be moral to follow a completely contraditary
rule there.
It is not the rules themselve that or moral or otherwise, but the rules do
establish a common convention that others may rely on, so it is moral to
follow these rules.
> I've seen people bend over backwards and crawl up
> their own fundaments trying to show how they were right all along --
> and especially where hanging onto some cash is concerned.
It is not my cash, and I have never been in that situation.
Alan Hope
>"Alan Hope" wrote
>>>> But the law does not say that, does it?
>>>As was established within the first few posts, the law states that the OP
>>>does not have to repay the money.
>> That's not at all what was established.
>Yes it was, as more than 6 years had expired, the debt was legally written
>off (could not be enforced).
The two are not at all the same, despite your frequent repetition. The
fact that a court will not enforce a debt in law does not mean the
debt itself ceases to exist.
>>>Therefore morally, the company released the OP from any obligation when
>>>the
>>>period of six years expired without resquesting the money back.
>> Not in the least. You must surely see there's a difference between
>> morals and law. The law, for example, places no obligation on me to be
>> faithful to my wife.
>Why should it, your relationship is for you to sort out. If both you and
>your wife choose to have an "open" relationship, that is quite correctly
>your choice.
I assume a normal or usual marriage, instead of some product of your
fevered imagination dreamed up simply to fit the scenario you desire
to make your stupid argument work.
>> Elsewhere, the law obliges me to cross the road,
>> if I must cross the road, at a designated crossing-place.
>If that is the case, then it is moral to follow that rule, as a motorist may
>rely on that rule being followed and you may cause damage to him or his
>property if you do not follow that rule.
You're an idiot. If the law says I must beat and dispossess Jews, do
you think that behaviour becomes moral? Do your morals await the
pleasure of Parliament? Mine don't.
>If it is custom to drive on the left of the road, then it is moral to follow
>that rule, to prevent harm to others. In the USA you would be expected to
>drive on the right, so it would be moral to follow a completely contraditary
>rule there.
Stupid fuck. I think of the seconds I've spent treating you as a
normal intelligent human being. I shall never forgive you.
>It is not the rules themselve that or moral or otherwise, but the rules do
>establish a common convention that others may rely on, so it is moral to
>follow these rules.
>> I've seen people bend over backwards and crawl up
>> their own fundaments trying to show how they were right all along --
>> and especially where hanging onto some cash is concerned.
>It is not my cash, and I have never been in that situation.
No, but you want to be ready if it ever arises. I know your sort.
--
AH
Alex Heney
wrote:
>
No it doesn't.
>So both parties can go the court and tell the whole truth and the OP
>will not have to repay the money.
>
True, but not the same thing.
The law says that you cannot enforce payment through the courts after
that period. Which is NOT the same as saying you "don't have to pay".
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Power corrupts; absolute power is even more fun.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>
>"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
>news:7kffk1lq3dt88sejs...@4ax.com...
>> Peter Mulloy goes:
>>
>>>"Alan Hope" wrote
>>>> It would be nice and comfortable, of course, if you could post in the
>>>> knowledge that no-one will raise any thorny questions of morality,
>>>> conscience, obligation, ethics and so on. But those are not divorced
>>>> from the legality either in the real world or in this one.
>>
>>>I just do not see that a question of morality arises here.
>>>The money was loaned by a business with full knowledge (or access to full
>>>knowledge) of the law. This was the choice of the business. If for
>>>whatever reason the law states that the OP does not have to repay that
>>>money, then there is no longer a debt.
>>
>> But the law does not say that, does it?
>
>As was established within the first few posts, the law states that the OP
>does not have to repay the money.
Wrong. It states that a court judgment requiring payment will not be
given.
>Therefore morally, the company released the OP from any obligation when the
>period of six years expired without resquesting the money back.
>
If you can conceive of that being true, then you have a set of moral
values wildly different to the vast majority of human society.
Regardless of what the *law* says, *morally* the OP still owes the
debt.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Death is life's way of telling you you've been fired.
Mike Ross
wrote:
>"Alan Hope" wrote
<snip>
>> Not in the least. You must surely see there's a difference between
>> morals and law. The law, for example, places no obligation on me to be
>> faithful to my wife.
>
>Why should it, your relationship is for you to sort out. If both you and
>your wife choose to have an "open" relationship, that is quite correctly
>your choice.
Interesting example; this situation is currently a matter of some
debate in the USA. In several states, adultery, even consentual, is
still a crime - a criminal offence punishable by significant terms of
imprisonment. So the view which you guys clearly agree on is by no
means universally held.
Peter Mulloy
>>> That's not at all what was established.
>
>>Yes it was, as more than 6 years had expired, the debt was legally written
>>off (could not be enforced).
>
> The two are not at all the same, despite your frequent repetition. The
> fact that a court will not enforce a debt in law does not mean the
> debt itself ceases to exist.
The two are exactly the same.
If you have no legal requirement to pay then you have no debt.
>>> Elsewhere, the law obliges me to cross the road,
>>> if I must cross the road, at a designated crossing-place.
>
>>If that is the case, then it is moral to follow that rule, as a motorist
>>may
>>rely on that rule being followed and you may cause damage to him or his
>>property if you do not follow that rule.
>
> You're an idiot.
Yes the first sign you have lost the argument, you have resorted to abuse.
> If the law says I must beat and dispossess Jews, do
> you think that behaviour becomes moral?
Yes the second sign you have lost the argument, you have resorted to using
the "Nazis" as an example
> Do your morals await the
> pleasure of Parliament? Mine don't.
So what makes you think that you are superior than the entire weight of our
laws which have evolved through centuries of custom as the result of many
many great minds?
>>If it is custom to drive on the left of the road, then it is moral to
>>follow
>>that rule, to prevent harm to others. In the USA you would be expected to
>>drive on the right, so it would be moral to follow a completely
>>contraditary
>>rule there.
>
> Stupid fuck. I think of the seconds I've spent treating you as a
> normal intelligent human being. I shall never forgive you.
You disagree with driving on the same side of the road as everyone else?
>>It is not the rules themselve that or moral or otherwise, but the rules do
>>establish a common convention that others may rely on, so it is moral to
>>follow these rules.
>
>>> I've seen people bend over backwards and crawl up
>>> their own fundaments trying to show how they were right all along --
>>> and especially where hanging onto some cash is concerned.
>
>>It is not my cash, and I have never been in that situation.
>
> No, but you want to be ready if it ever arises. I know your sort.
And I know your sort.
Alan Hope
>On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 19:11:51 +0100, "Peter Mulloy" <no_...@spam.com>
>wrote:
>>"Alan Hope" wrote
><snip>
>>> Not in the least. You must surely see there's a difference between
>>> morals and law. The law, for example, places no obligation on me to be
>>> faithful to my wife.
>>Why should it, your relationship is for you to sort out. If both you and
>>your wife choose to have an "open" relationship, that is quite correctly
>>your choice.
>Interesting example; this situation is currently a matter of some
>debate in the USA. In several states, adultery, even consentual, is
>still a crime - a criminal offence punishable by significant terms of
>imprisonment. So the view which you guys clearly agree on is by no
>means universally held.
"We guys" don't agree in the slightest.
I think infidelity is immoral whatever the law says. Mulloy is the
type who would be unfaithful one day then change his coat the day the
new law is passed.
My morality is not contingent, and I even believe no true morality can
be contingent. If your morals are not absolute, then they're
worthless, and you're not trying hard enough. Previous experience
leads me to suspect you're angling for a loophole. Not you, obviously.
The generic "you".
--
AH
Alan Hope
>"Alan Hope" wrote
>>>> That's not at all what was established.
>>>Yes it was, as more than 6 years had expired, the debt was legally written
>>>off (could not be enforced).
>> The two are not at all the same, despite your frequent repetition. The
>> fact that a court will not enforce a debt in law does not mean the
>> debt itself ceases to exist.
>The two are exactly the same.
>If you have no legal requirement to pay then you have no debt.
So if your mate lends you a fiver till payday, you can forget it and
keep the money since there was no signed contract?
You're an empty vessel, sir.
>>>> Elsewhere, the law obliges me to cross the road,
>>>> if I must cross the road, at a designated crossing-place.
>>>If that is the case, then it is moral to follow that rule, as a motorist
>>>may
>>>rely on that rule being followed and you may cause damage to him or his
>>>property if you do not follow that rule.
>> You're an idiot.
>Yes the first sign you have lost the argument, you have resorted to abuse.
No, I think you pipped me to the post, by being an idiot.
>> If the law says I must beat and dispossess Jews, do
>> you think that behaviour becomes moral?
>Yes the second sign you have lost the argument, you have resorted to using
>the "Nazis" as an example
Did I? Where?
>> Do your morals await the
>> pleasure of Parliament? Mine don't.
>So what makes you think that you are superior than the entire weight of our
>laws which have evolved through centuries of custom as the result of many
>many great minds?
You cannot be serious. Law includes stoning women for adultery. Law
involves executing the mentally-ill and severely-retarded. Law
involves executing people, full stop.
The law is whatever people say it is. Morals are bigger than that. I
think my morality is greater than any law that has ever been passed,
or could ever be passed. That's the whole point. I don't blow with the
breeze as you do.
>>>If it is custom to drive on the left of the road, then it is moral to
>>>follow
>>>that rule, to prevent harm to others. In the USA you would be expected to
>>>drive on the right, so it would be moral to follow a completely
>>>contraditary
>>>rule there.
>> Stupid fuck. I think of the seconds I've spent treating you as a
>> normal intelligent human being. I shall never forgive you.
>You disagree with driving on the same side of the road as everyone else?
I disagree it's a moral question. I refuse to discuss with someone who
doesn't even have a basic vocabulary.
>>>It is not the rules themselve that or moral or otherwise, but the rules do
>>>establish a common convention that others may rely on, so it is moral to
>>>follow these rules.
>>>> I've seen people bend over backwards and crawl up
>>>> their own fundaments trying to show how they were right all along --
>>>> and especially where hanging onto some cash is concerned.
>>>It is not my cash, and I have never been in that situation.
>> No, but you want to be ready if it ever arises. I know your sort.
>And I know your sort.
Yes, I'll be frowning on you, you little collaborator.
--
AH
bigbrian
wrote:
>"Alan Hope" wrote
>>>> That's not at all what was established.
>>
>>>Yes it was, as more than 6 years had expired, the debt was legally written
>>>off (could not be enforced).
>>
>> The two are not at all the same, despite your frequent repetition. The
>> fact that a court will not enforce a debt in law does not mean the
>> debt itself ceases to exist.
>
>The two are exactly the same.
>If you have no legal requirement to pay then you have no debt.
You seem to be missing his point quite spectacularly...indeed so
spectacularly, it looks quite intentional.
In simple terms, a debt is an obligation to repay something. Many
people regard that obligation as a moral duty - people have been known
to be quite extraordinarily selfless in mustering the resources to
repay a debt, irrespective of any sense of a *legal* obligation to do
so. They never consider the legal consequences of *not* doing so
because its irrelevant. Its a matter of self respect to them. They
regard a debt as more than simply a legal obligation, its a matter of
honour.
Some people, which seems to include you, regard the obligation as one
restricted simply by the limits of what the law provides - in effect,
a debt only exists within the terms of the law. Once the law makes the
debt impossible to recover, it no longer exists. Indeed, its far from
unknown for people to incur debt in the first place with one eye on
how the law will allow them to avoid (legally) being obliged to repay
it.
So far so good. If you want to regard yourself as being free from a
debt - indeed regarding the debt as no longer existing - simply
because the law provides no mechanism for its recovery - fair enough.
But please don't think you're correct in seeking to extend that
thinking to everyone else. To some people, avoiding a debt simply
because the law allows you to doesn't mean the debt isn't there. And
to those people, avoiding a debt just *because* the law allows you to,
is an indication of a lack of integrity
Whether you agree with that position is ultimately irrelevant. You
repreatedly claim that the position in itself is invalid.
You're wrong
Brian
Alex Heney
wrote:
>"Alan Hope" wrote
>>>> That's not at all what was established.
>>
>>>Yes it was, as more than 6 years had expired, the debt was legally written
>>>off (could not be enforced).
>>
>> The two are not at all the same, despite your frequent repetition. The
>> fact that a court will not enforce a debt in law does not mean the
>> debt itself ceases to exist.
>
>The two are exactly the same.
Only to somebody completely lacking in morals.
>If you have no legal requirement to pay then you have no debt.
>
You missed "and are completely lacking in morals" after the word
requirement.
>
>>>> Elsewhere, the law obliges me to cross the road,
>>>> if I must cross the road, at a designated crossing-place.
>>
>>>If that is the case, then it is moral to follow that rule, as a motorist
>>>may
>>>rely on that rule being followed and you may cause damage to him or his
>>>property if you do not follow that rule.
>>
>> You're an idiot.
>
>Yes the first sign you have lost the argument, you have resorted to abuse.
>
It isn't abuse when it is obviously correct :-)
You simply don't *have* an argument.
>> If the law says I must beat and dispossess Jews, do
>> you think that behaviour becomes moral?
>
>Yes the second sign you have lost the argument, you have resorted to using
>the "Nazis" as an example
>
So you have no answer. What a surprise.
>
>> Do your morals await the
>> pleasure of Parliament? Mine don't.
>
>So what makes you think that you are superior than the entire weight of our
>laws which have evolved through centuries of custom as the result of many
>many great minds?
>
The limitations act did not arise through centuries of custom
It arose through a number of acts, brought into force between 1939 and
1980.
I'm not sure where you get the "many many great minds" from either.
There have undoubtedly been *some* in parliament, but even one "many"
is exaggerating rather.
And even then, laws and morals do not necessarily go hand in hand.
>
>>>If it is custom to drive on the left of the road, then it is moral to
>>>follow
>>>that rule, to prevent harm to others. In the USA you would be expected to
>>>drive on the right, so it would be moral to follow a completely
>>>contraditary
>>>rule there.
>>
>> Stupid fuck. I think of the seconds I've spent treating you as a
>> normal intelligent human being. I shall never forgive you.
>
>You disagree with driving on the same side of the road as everyone else?
>
I doubt it. He disagrees (rightly) with considering that a "moral"
decision.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Solution: A more subtle problem.
Peter Mulloy
>>The two are exactly the same.
>>If you have no legal requirement to pay then you have no debt.
>
> You seem to be missing his point quite spectacularly...indeed so
> spectacularly, it looks quite intentional.
>
> In simple terms, a debt is an obligation to repay something. Many
> people regard that obligation as a moral duty - people have been known
> to be quite extraordinarily selfless in mustering the resources to
> repay a debt, irrespective of any sense of a *legal* obligation to do
> so. They never consider the legal consequences of *not* doing so
> because its irrelevant. Its a matter of self respect to them. They
> regard a debt as more than simply a legal obligation, its a matter of
> honour.
The law does not stop them from doing this if that is their choice.
> Some people, which seems to include you, regard the obligation as one
> restricted simply by the limits of what the law provides - in effect,
> a debt only exists within the terms of the law. Once the law makes the
> debt impossible to recover, it no longer exists.
Exactly so, these are the rules of society. All contracts are subject to a
body of law which although not written (or verbally stated) within the
contract, do still form part of that contract. If you do not like this, you
do not have to enter into that contract.
> So far so good. If you want to regard yourself as being free from a
> debt - indeed regarding the debt as no longer existing - simply
> because the law provides no mechanism for its recovery - fair enough.
We agree (-:
> But please don't think you're correct in seeking to extend that
> thinking to everyone else. To some people, avoiding a debt simply
> because the law allows you to doesn't mean the debt isn't there. And
> to those people, avoiding a debt just *because* the law allows you to,
> is an indication of a lack of integrity
I was responding to Alan Hope, who was stating that it was wrong for the OP
not to repay money when he has no legal obligation to do so. I do not state
that it is wrong to pay if you choose to do so.
Peter Mulloy
> So if your mate lends you a fiver till payday, you can forget it and
> keep the money since there was no signed contract?
>
> You're an empty vessel, sir.
Here there is a clear legal obligation to repay, a verbal contract is as
binding as a written contract.
>>> Do your morals await the
>>> pleasure of Parliament? Mine don't.
>
>>So what makes you think that you are superior than the entire weight of
>>our
>>laws which have evolved through centuries of custom as the result of many
>>many great minds?
>
> You cannot be serious. Law includes stoning women for adultery. Law
> involves executing the mentally-ill and severely-retarded. Law
> involves executing people, full stop.
Please state which acts currently permit these things within the UK?
> The law is whatever people say it is. Morals are bigger than that. I
> think my morality is greater than any law that has ever been passed,
> or could ever be passed. That's the whole point. I don't blow with the
> breeze as you do.
The law has taken centuries to evolve, and has been formed as a result of
many great minds over a long period of time. But "morals" are as varied as
peoples choice of clothes and often change with fasion. Morals are not
recorded so only a telepath could predict what each person's morals might
be.
Contracts within the law are clear cut, the law states what the obligations
are, and it is your choice whether you agree to or reject the contract.
>>>>If it is custom to drive on the left of the road, then it is moral to
>>>>follow
>>>>that rule, to prevent harm to others. In the USA you would be expected
>>>>to
>>>>drive on the right, so it would be moral to follow a completely
>>>>contraditary
>>>>rule there.
>
>>> Stupid fuck. I think of the seconds I've spent treating you as a
>>> normal intelligent human being. I shall never forgive you.
>
>>You disagree with driving on the same side of the road as everyone else?
>
> I disagree it's a moral question. I refuse to discuss with someone who
> doesn't even have a basic vocabulary.
So putting others at risk by choosing to drive on the wrong side of the road
is in no way wrong?
>>>>It is not the rules themselve that or moral or otherwise, but the rules
>>>>do
>>>>establish a common convention that others may rely on, so it is moral to
>>>>follow these rules.
>
>>>>> I've seen people bend over backwards and crawl up
>>>>> their own fundaments trying to show how they were right all along --
>>>>> and especially where hanging onto some cash is concerned.
>
>>>>It is not my cash, and I have never been in that situation.
>
>>> No, but you want to be ready if it ever arises. I know your sort.
>
>>And I know your sort.
>
> Yes, I'll be frowning on you, you little collaborator.
I think you have seriously lost the plot.
Peter Mulloy
"Mike Ross" wrote
>>> Not in the least. You must surely see there's a difference between
>>> morals and law. The law, for example, places no obligation on me to be
>>> faithful to my wife.
>>
>>Why should it, your relationship is for you to sort out. If both you and
>>your wife choose to have an "open" relationship, that is quite correctly
>>your choice.
>
> Interesting example; this situation is currently a matter of some
> debate in the USA. In several states, adultery, even consentual, is
> still a crime - a criminal offence punishable by significant terms of
> imprisonment.
Interesting, which states?
USA is a very varied place, with prostitution being legal in certain parts
of Nevada.
Since laws are mostly formed from a collective's view of morality, it just
shows how morality is so varied.
> So the view which you guys clearly agree on is by no
> means universally held.
I think me and Alan are very much opposites, which makes this thread
interesting.
And your comment is really at the heart of my view, morals are extremely
diverse.
Your morals are something you live by for your own reasons, they are not
something you should expect others to live by.
But the law (whatever it is) applies to all within your community and their
are even laws to deal with trading between different legal durastictions.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>"Alan Hope" wrote
>> So if your mate lends you a fiver till payday, you can forget it and
>> keep the money since there was no signed contract?
>>
>> You're an empty vessel, sir.
>
>Here there is a clear legal obligation to repay, a verbal contract is as
>binding as a written contract.
>
There is NO more *legal* obligation on you to pay in that circumstance
than in the one where you claim there "is no debt".
Unless it says otherwise, a contract (written or otherwise) does not
become any less binding just because a period of time has elapsed.
>
>> The law is whatever people say it is. Morals are bigger than that. I
>> think my morality is greater than any law that has ever been passed,
>> or could ever be passed. That's the whole point. I don't blow with the
>> breeze as you do.
>
>The law has taken centuries to evolve, and has been formed as a result of
>many great minds over a long period of time.
that is the second time you have made that ludicrous statement.
>>>> Stupid fuck. I think of the seconds I've spent treating you as a
>>>> normal intelligent human being. I shall never forgive you.
>>
>>>You disagree with driving on the same side of the road as everyone else?
>>
>> I disagree it's a moral question. I refuse to discuss with someone who
>> doesn't even have a basic vocabulary.
>
>So putting others at risk by choosing to drive on the wrong side of the road
>is in no way wrong?
>
Where has he come remotely close to suggesting any such thing?
>
>>>>>It is not the rules themselve that or moral or otherwise, but the rules
>>>>>do
>>>>>establish a common convention that others may rely on, so it is moral to
>>>>>follow these rules.
>>
>>>>>> I've seen people bend over backwards and crawl up
>>>>>> their own fundaments trying to show how they were right all along --
>>>>>> and especially where hanging onto some cash is concerned.
>>
>>>>>It is not my cash, and I have never been in that situation.
>>
>>>> No, but you want to be ready if it ever arises. I know your sort.
>>
>>>And I know your sort.
>>
>> Yes, I'll be frowning on you, you little collaborator.
>
>I think you have seriously lost the plot.
>
Well if you ever find it, are you sure you would recognise it, having
never had it before?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If it glows don't touch it!
Peter Mulloy
> The law says that you cannot enforce payment through the courts after
> that period. Which is NOT the same as saying you "don't have to pay".
That simply does not compute with me. "Don't have to pay" means you have
the option of not paying without suffering any penalty. If the law states
that you cannot enforce payment, this is clearly the same thing.