How to do a collection for PCWorld fighter

I don't see the problem, if he couldn't afford to do it he shouldn't have done it. I don't really see the problem he forfeited a contract he signed.
 
Hyburnate said:
I don't see the problem, if he couldn't afford to do it he shouldn't have done it. I don't really see the problem he forfeited a contract he signed.
Click to expand...

He was black listed for non paying his contract hire purchase of the computer. As he had a bad credit rating he couldn't buy a house.

I think it would be great publicity for another computer company if they paid his legal fees !
 
Rroff said:
Didn't he turn down an original judgement of 100+ grand or something?
Click to expand...

Yes the original judgement gave him £116000 or so about ten years ago, he felt it wasn't enough, so he appealed and had the amount reduced as he couldn't demonstrate loss, mainly as the housing market collapsed and any potential property he might have bought wouldn't have increased in value.

Now the supreme court can't change the amount.
If anything he had poor legal guidance, as his first amount would have bough him a house years and years ago.

This story is also little to do with pcworld, they took the computer back and cancelled the purchase.
It was the banks refusal to cancel the credit agreement that was the issue.
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
Yes the original judgement gave him £116000 or so about ten years ago, he felt it wasn't enough, so he appealed and had the amount reduced as he couldn't demonstrate loss, mainly as the housing market collapsed and any potential property he might have bought wouldn't have increased in value.

Now the supreme court can't change the amount.
If anything he had poor legal guidance, as his first amount would have bough him a house years and years ago.

This story is also little to do with pcworld, they took the computer back and cancelled the purchase.
It was the banks refusal to cancel the credit agreement that was the issue.
Click to expand...

But I want to hate PcWorld :(
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
Yes the original judgement gave him £116000 or so about ten years ago, he felt it wasn't enough, so he appealed and had the amount reduced as he couldn't demonstrate loss, mainly as the housing market collapsed and any potential property he might have bought wouldn't have increased in value.

Now the supreme court can't change the amount.
If anything he had poor legal guidance, as his first amount would have bough him a house years and years ago.

This story is also little to do with pcworld, they took the computer back and cancelled the purchase.
It was the banks refusal to cancel the credit agreement that was the issue.
Click to expand...

Im pretty sure it was the bank that appealed and won their appeal.
 
AndyCroft1982 said:
Im pretty sure it was the bank that appealed and won their appeal.
Click to expand...

No that is NOT the case
He appealled

In 2008 Aberdeen Sheriff Court ruled that he was entitled to reject the laptop and cancel the sale and the credit agreement and awarded damages of £116,000.

The decision was overturned later by judges at the Court of Session in Edinburgh after Mr Durkin himself appealed against the size of the damages.
Click to expand...

He was offered damages of over 100 times the purchase amount and felt them to not be enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom