Hire Purchase agreement question

amandstu

I am looking at a hire purchase agreement for a second hand car and I see that there are two signatures on the document.

One is that of the purchaser and the other is a "witness (independent witness)."

This second witness was the garage man who was selling the car.

Is that contract valid if the garage man is not ,in my eyes "independent "?

GM228

A HP agreement is an agreement between you and the financial provider giving credit, not an agreement between you and the garage, so yes the salesman is an independent witness in terms of the HP agreement.

amandstu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118315818#Comment_118315818

What if the garage man has misinformed the buyer as to the contents of the agreement/contract and the buyer has signed "on trust"?

whippet

The buyer should read something he is signing - the witness is just witnessing the buyer actually signing - nothing more nothing less

amandstu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118315977#Comment_118315977

OK I feel like a sore loser but it was the garage that got the bulk of the payment and not the Finance company.If this had been a multi million financial deal (or an expensive housing development) would the real beneficiary be allowed to be the "independent witness" to the deal?

It did specify "independent witness" on the form.

Rob Thomas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118316784#Comment_118316784

If you are unhappy with the agreement there should be a cooling off period you can use to change your mind

amandstu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118316821#Comment_118316821

We only noticed the payments were being made towards the end of the 2 year period. (we no longer get paper statements from the bank which might be something of an excuse for the oversight)

The car was bought as a result of another car (same garage) being unable to repair it and the second car being offered as a "straight swap"

The signature was given on the basis that it was just to change the HP agreement from one car to the next.

Now I can see (belatedly finding the letter in the post) that the first car was traded in at a price I was not informed of and the new car got it's own HP arrangement...

wench

Any witness would only have been watching you sign.

They weren't going to read your contract and explain it to you.

amandstu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118317024#Comment_118317024

I disagree.The garage ,who was the witness to the signature should have explained what was in the agreement if they noticed that the signatory was not giving it due attention or might reasonably be expected to believe that there was something in the agreement other than had been agreed previously.

Not to do so strikes me as manipulation or duplicity.

wench

But again, none of that has anything to do with the witnessing of the agreement.

Had an independent witness come in off the street, they wouldn't have had any idea of the content of the document. All they would see was you signing it, and that is what they would be attesting to.

When you were agreeing the deal was the time to find out what was going in it. You had the chance at signing to read it, but you chose not to. That's on you, and complaining about the witness will get you nowhere.

amandstu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118317972#Comment_118317972

Sure ,you are right but I was responding to your implication (perhaps off topic) that the actual witness ,the seller of the seller and buyer of the two cars had no duty not mislead the signatory of the contents of the contract.

If "any witness" is someone with an interest in the outcome ,any duplicity on his part is worthy of note even if ,as I have conceded it may not invalidate the document itself

amandstu

Lenar3556

More to the point, does a comma appear at any point in the agreement? If so, all bets are off, and I’d be looking for compensation.

Peregrinus

Bear in mind that the purpose of having your signature witnessed is not to protect you; it's to protect the other party — in this case, the finance company.

If they want to sue you to recover the loan and you say "What? I never signed any loan agreement! That's not my signature! It's a forgery!" they call the witness who says "yep, I was there, I saw the thing signed, he signed it". More realistically, it never gets to that point, because you don't deny your signature, because you know there was a witness who can contradict you.

So, if there's something defective about the execution or witnessing of your signature, that's not really a problem for you; it's a problem for the finance company. They are the one who need to enforce the loan agreement against you, and they rely on the fact that you signed it to do so. If some issue with the witnessing somehow invalidates your signature that's a problem for them, not for you.

amandstu

As a matter of interest does the arrangement that I was informed of even exist in practice?

What I mean is,if something esp a car is bought with a HP agreement and for whatever reason the purchaser want to change the car being bought but to leave the contract otherwise intact.

Is it possible to simply change the registration number (and description ?) of the car but change nothing else in the agreement?

If you agree that with the finance company then sure, you can have identical terms in a new contract, but it will still be a new contract.

amandstu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118336871#Comment_118336871

So the repayments schedule might not miss a skip but there might be a handling charge ?

No idea. It depends on what you agree.

Claw Hammer

It is inevitably a new agreement. The car is security for the loan. If you change the car you must change the loan to reflect that the new car is now the security. The moral of the story is read before you sign!