翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Wilson Township, Kansas ・ Wilson Township, Marion County, Kansas ・ Wilson Township, Michigan ・ Wilson Township, Minnesota ・ Wilson Township, Missouri ・ Wilson Township, Osceola County, Iowa ・ Wilson Township, Pope County, Arkansas ・ Wilson Township, Winona County, Minnesota ・ Wilson Trail ・ Wilson Trailer Company ・ Wilson Tucker ・ Wilson Tuckey ・ Wilson Urtecho ・ Wilson v New Brighton Panelbeaters Ltd ・ Wilson v Racher ・ Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ・ Wilson v St Helens BC ・ Wilson v. Arkansas ・ Wilson v. Girard ・ Wilson v. Libby ・ Wilson v. Mason ・ Wilson v. McClure et al ・ Wilson v. Omaha Tribe ・ Wilson v. State ・ Wilson Valdez ・ Wilson Vance ・ Wilson W. Brown ・ Wilson W. Hoover ・ Wilson W. Jones ・ Wilson W. Sorensen Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ： ウィキペディア英語版 Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ''Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry'' () (UKHL 40 ) is a United Kingdom human rights, consumer protection and contract law case. It made a decision on the applicability of Art 1, Prot 1 of the ECHR and some important observations on the relevance of Hansard in litigation. It also raised a small point on unjust enrichment claims under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. ==Facts== Mrs Penelope Wilson pawned (or "pledged") her BMW 318 convertible for £5000 to a two-person company called First County Trust Ltd (i.e. she gave her car as security for a loan of £5000). She had to pay £304.50 per month in interest (a 94.78% pa interest rate). There was also a £250 "document fee", but because Mrs Wilson could not pay it, the fee was added to the loan. Six months later she had to redeem the car by paying the full amount of £7,327, or the car would be sold. She did not pay six months later. When the pawnbroker asked her for the money, instead of paying, she brought an action against him under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to get her car back. Under s 127(3) an improperly executed consumer credit agreement - such as one where the debtor does not sign and the document does not contain all the prescribed terms of the agreement - is unenforceable by a creditor. Mrs Wilson argued that the £250 was not part of the credit under the agreement, and therefore where the document stated that £5250 was given as a loan, this was incorrect. Therefore she argued the loan was unenforceable. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.