GOOFy Eric19 claims success at clawing back DDs for "credit cards, loans and one mortgage (on the house that we've sold 3 years ago)". Now, he is trying to stop them from clawing back the clawbacks.
Eric19 has the same fondness as Baron David Ward for wet ink signatures:
Eric19 wrote:... there is a requirement that any formal agreement is formally signed in wet ink by an authorised officer of the Company by the title of Sainsbury’s.
And J Smith is required to produce the wet-ink signed agreement:
Eric19 wrote:That there is a formal requirement for Mr J. Smith in the position of director of collections and recoveries for Sainsbury’s to present the factual material evidence that there is a formal agreement with consideration in both directions, Full disclosure in the terms and conditions which is formally signed in wet ink by both parties which would be Mr X. YYY and a named and authorised officer of Sainsbury’s.
Eric takes this to the logical-illogical conclusion. If Mr J. Smith can't produce these wet ink agreements then this enters him into an agreement:
Eric19 wrote:Failure for Mr J. Smith in the position of director of collections and recoveries for Sainsbury’s to present the above valid material evidence to support the claims made by Mr J. Smith in the next seven (7) days will enter Mr J. Smith in the position of director of collections and recoveries for Sainsbury’s into a formal and binding agreement between Mr J. Smith and Mr X. YYY to the following effect.
Which is it, Eric? Agreements require wet ink signatures, or agreements can be foisted when one side doesn't do what the other side asks for?
If agreements can be foisted, then the original agreement doesn't need to be signed, and your conditions for foisting an agreement are not met.