Banks charging penalty interest on arrears when outside MARP

Why would I want to look up US case law? It has no relevance here.

I very much doubt any US case law renders void any contractual term on the basis that it is an unfair contractual term - that is simply not a recognised legal concept under US law. The US courts certainly apply the common law concept of unenforceable liquidated damages but that is a different matter.
 
Sarenco said:
Why would I want to look up US case law? It has no relevance here.

I very much doubt any US case law renders void any contractual term on the basis that it is an unfair contractual term - that is simply not a recognised legal concept under US law. The US courts certainly apply the common law concept of unenforceable liquidated damages but that is a different matter.
Click to expand...
Sarenco,

Seeing that you do not like looking at the common law based jurisdiction of the U.S.A. and how the federal courts deal with banks who charge excessive penalties if the borrower is in arrears. How about the common law jurisdiction of Canada which, like Ireland, is based on the common law legal system of England. They have a good piece of statutory legislation called the " interest Act " you should give it a read, in particular section 8.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why would I want to do that? Canadian legislation may be of academic interest but it has no application or relevance in Ireland.

I was simply responding to Asphyxia's suggestion that there were cases in the UK where clauses imposing interest on arrears were voided as being unfair contractual terms. There are no such cases as far as I am aware.
 
As regards your edited post, the fact that Canada is a common law jurisdiction is irrelevant. Canadian legislation does not apply here.
 
The Irish Supreme Court sometimes consult with judgments, determinations in other jurisdictions when seeking guidance on a legal matter presented to them. To state that the laws and judgments in other common law jurisdictions are irrelevant is rather obtuse.

As regards the irrelevant edited post dig, the section 8 addition was to draw your attention to the particular section of relevant legislation, and besides I am entitled to edit anything that I have posted I do not see a problem with that.
 
Judicial precedents from other common law jurisdictions may be of persuasive authority in the Irish courts. Legislation enacted by other common law jurisdictions has no application in the Irish courts.

Again, Canadian legislation does not apply in Ireland. The fact that Canada is a common law jurisdiction is irrelevant in this regard.

Did I suggest you were not entitled to edit a post?

I have no idea why you are drawing my attention to a section of a Canadian statute that has no application in Ireland.
 
I am speaking for your benefit in the language of the common law.
 
Well, Google throws up a blank.

Anyway, when did English stop being "the language of the common law"?
 
I suppose when the wigged powers that be allowed words like

Affidavit for " he has sworn ",

Bone fide for " in good faith "

Caveat emptor for " let the buyer beware "

Certiorari for " to be appraised "

Contra proferentum for " against the drafter "

Ignorantia juris non excusat for " ignorance of the law does not excuse "

And one I actually like,

Mortgage for " death pledge "

to be used in our great common law legal processes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top