From: "tim....." 
Newsgroups: uk.finance
Subject: Re: Unauthorised Overdraft Charges
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:00:26 +0100


"John Boyle"  wrote in message 
news:si3vniA7S$JGFwcc@johnboyle1.demon.co.uk...
> In message , Peter Saxton 
>  writes
>>>What I meant was that 6.4 shows that the charges are part of the
>>>contract, not a penalty for breaking the contract.
>>
>>How could any "penalty charge"(my view)/"valid charge"(your view) be
>>enforced if it is declared?
>>
> Not sure what you mean but my point was that if the charges are declared 
> at the outset for the provision of services provided by that contract, and 
> they are accepted by the client, then they are enforceable.

Then your point is wrong, in Law.

They are enforcable if they ARE a charge for a service.

They are NOT enforcable if the are a charge for
correcting a breach.

Which they are, is an issue of fact which depends upon
the circumstances, it does not depend upon how they are
described in the contract.

Charges do not become enforcable because the customer
(appears to) 'accept' the contract.

John, this is what is wrong with your postings all along.
You do not seem to understand this issue of law.

I accept that the charges may be a charge for a service,
but you seem to think that they are so, just because the
contract says this.

tim







> -- 
> John Boyle