mortgage contracts not worth the paper they are written on

timhoward

all mortgage contracts must have what is termed "consideration" in order for them to be legal contracts. This law is almost universal and applies to contract law in almost every country. consideration is simply you put up something and the mutual party puts up something ie you put up your house as security and the bank puts up the money. now europe just like america uses the fractionalist banking system whereby money is produced by the ecb from nothing, to understand this better and explained in detail but in laymans language go to you tube and type in zeitgeist adendum and watch the movie. Because the money does not physically exist except digitally in a computer it cannot be used as consideration in a legal contract. see

First National Bank of Montgomery vs Jerome Daly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

this was not a widely publisised case because it took place in the 60s and tv was not widely available never mind the internet, but the precedent was set and jerome won his case and the mortgage was declared invalid. This same legal arguement applies here but has simply never been taken to court to set the precedent. So if you want your mortgage declared invalid i suggest you visit a good solicitor who fully understands the fractionalist banking system

unclebill98

This was discussed before.

There is a distinct difference between how banks secure a mortgage here as supposed to how the US banks do there's. Can't remember who clarified it but maybe they will be kind enough to post again.

Tbh, if it was as simple as you make it out to be it would have been challenged long ago. So I sense it's simple n/a in this country.

tenchi-fan

From the same wikipedia article you linked to:

"The immediate effect of the decision was that Daly did not have to repay the mortgage or relinquish the property. However, the bank appealed the next day, and the decision was ultimately nullified on the grounds that a Justice of the Peace did not have the power to make such a ruling."

These contract law cases have been spamming message boards for quite a while now, arguing everything from loans that don't have to be paid to no obligation to pay tax, all because of the definitions of "consideration" and "contract law"

chris85

tenchi-fan wrote: »

From the same wikipedia article you linked to:

"The immediate effect of the decision was that Daly did not have to repay the mortgage or relinquish the property. However, the bank appealed the next day, and the decision was ultimately nullified on the grounds that a Justice of the Peace did not have the power to make such a ruling."

These contract law cases have been spamming message boards for quite a while now, arguing everything from loans that don't have to be paid to no obligation to pay tax, all because of the definitions of "consideration" and "contract law"

+1

everyone quoting bull from American or UK law. this one from wikipedia. oh dear.

i guess i will walk into my bank and say not paying my debt as i read this thing on wikipedia.

BuffyBot

Nonsense thread is..nonsense. Also closed