Consumer Credit: Agreement v Contract

In relation to Consumer Credit Act, when a Creditor claims to have a CONTRACT with an alleged debtor, is this terminology different to an AGREEMENT or are they one and the same thing?

sam66 wrote:In relation to Consumer Credit Act, when a Creditor claims to have a CONTRACT with an alleged debtor, is this terminology different to an AGREEMENT or are they one and the same thing?

A Contract is a written or spoken agreement, especially one concerning employment, sales, or tenancy, that is intended to be enforceable by law.
"he has just signed a contract keeping him with the club"

synonyms: agreement, commitment, arrangement, settlement, undertaking, understanding, compact, covenant, pact, bond;

An agreement differs from a contract and is a set of conditions both/all parties agree to at the time of signing.

Contracts are a set of formal conditions both/all parties consent to at the time of signing.

When you have an agreement and it is "legally" emforced it becomes a contract and is bound by English Contract Law and European Contract Protocols in England and Wales.

No contract is ever intended to be enforced by law as the conditions within it are strictly laid down, with an agreement they are less formal, hence the difference.

Under the CCA they are agreements and NOT contracts, when someone claims to have a contract they are using a play on words, usually with the intention of legally enforcing the agreement so at the time of judgement in their favour it becomes a contract in law.

Thanks Assassin - the distinction is becoming clearer.

So in a case where a DCA claims there was Contract between a Bank and alledged debtor, before it was assigned to them does this mean the CCA is not applicable because they are claiming contract rather than agreement, or am I reading too much into it?

Agreements with governments are Private Law.

The move to private law is a result of national govts signing the Unidroit Principles back in 1973 or thereabouts. (Unidrioit is the creation of the holy see.) As I understand things, the UK also signed up around that time as all other western govts.

This is dangerous for the individual because they step outside of their constitutional rights and into private law between the govt and themselves.  As we know from experience, as time goes by, the individual is slowly screwed into giving away more and more rights.

Its also dangerous because any review completely ignores any judgement and looks solely at the process for arriving at the judgement only. Its only if the review considers the process for arriving at the judgement is flawed, do they consider changing the judgement.

Its not until people encounter this situation that they realise whats happened but few are in any position to do anything about it.

This is ultimately how govt will come to have direct control over us all. For them, it gives them direct control (governance) over the individual.  Its easier than having to give the masses the same rights as corporations and the rich have.

We can see from this the govt wants us all to claim something from them because that way they can make that individual sign an agreement which puts them on the path to surrendering all their rights. Ultimately, there is nothing to stop them from slowly getting us all to the point that we even have to surrender our human rights just to get the dole, the pension or some other form of income.

This fact alone proves the dole haters don't understand that contrary to their claims that welfare for individuals is bad, govts regard it as good because they can use it to subvert the individual and convert the individul into a complete and utter slave.

sam66 wrote:Thanks Assassin - the distinction is becoming clearer.

So in a case where a DCA claims there was Contract between a Bank and alledged debtor, before it was assigned to them does this mean the CCA is not applicable because they are claiming contract rather than agreement, or am I reading too much into it?

This is often a misleading claim as how do they know whether a contract or agreement is in place? it is merely a play on words to get indoctrinated people to consent by action so they can enforce an alleged debt, in either case the contract or agreement was with the principal and not the DCA and is nothing to do with them.

Nice post Ausk, and so accurate.