IQ Consultants, Felicitas Solutions, ECS Trustees - loan repayment demands

[Sid Sewell]

sO I finally got a copy of contracts and details today. I've forwarded to WTT.

there is a lOT of blacked out stuff in there; Although my name, address, email address are in there, there is no signature that I can find.

I'm not sure whats been blacked out, in same cases it's whole pages.

I'd be interested to see if anyone else got an email today

Aren’t they supposed to be sending these to WTT as per the letters that WTT have sent?

[eek]

This type of share is mis-leading. That contract of service is not clearly articulated.

Judgement would be made on the holsitc picture of events including the way the 'Trust' has handled its business, taking into account the 'duty of care' to it's 'beneficiaries'.

You seem to think I'm saying the contract is valid - I'm not doing that. I'm just pointing out that the lack of a signature doesn't determine things one way or another.

If this get's to court then as you say the judge will look at things from a legal perspective - and it may not be on a holistic approach - it could come down to what the paperwork says and the fact you received money in a particular way. A wise man wouldn't try to second guess what a judge may take interest in and what he/ she will dismiss as irrelevant.

[IWasRobbed]

they should be

Aren’t they supposed to be sending these to WTT as per the letters that WTT have sent?

They should be. I forwarded to WTT who said ignore it because, as my representatives, every thing should be going through them.

It's interesting they've redacted loads of it, literally pages of it. No signature anywhere.


just utter scum. hope his yacht sinks

[DealorNoDeal]

If this get's to court...

I wonder if we'll see this happen in the Isle of Man before pigs are spotted flying over the island.

[WoffleCopter]

You don't need a signature for a contract to be binding see for instance - https://thpsolicitors.co.uk/business-news/can-unsigned-contracts-still-be-binding-the-answer-is-yes/

If it's possible to argue that you received money as part of an agreement it's possible to argue that the contract is binding.

Perhaps...however, I think they would need to prove at least that you had actually received the contract at the time. This would be difficult without a signature.

[eek]

Perhaps...however, I think they would need to prove at least that you had actually received the contract at the time. This would be difficult without a signature.

Not even that is required by a court - receiving money may be enough to determine that you agreed the contract...

And I know I'm putting a downer on things here but if (BIG if) this goes to court, the fact you received money and didn't query and repay it at the time may rather override the lack of a signature especially when the amount of money involved is not insignificant.

[WoffleCopter]

Not even that is required by a court - receiving money may be enough to determine that you agreed the contract...

And I know I'm putting a downer on things here but if (BIG if) this goes to court, the fact you received money and didn't query and repay it at the time may rather override the lack of a signature especially when the amount of money involved is not insignificant.

You received money that you worked for, have signed time sheets for, have a contract of services for and can prove was sent to them by the client. You have their promotional material showing you would receive 85% of contact value.

[eek]

You received money that you worked for, have signed time sheets for, have a contract of services for and can prove was sent to them by the client. You have their promotional material showing you would receive 85% of contact value.

You don't however have any contract or paperwork between yourself and the employing / company paying you. Surely that is fundamental as the devil is in the detail..

The problem here is that you see the lack of signatures / paperwork as a good thing - I see it as the opposite as it allows the other side to provide anything they want as evidence with you having little to contradict it with.

[Wtaf]

You don't however have any contract or paperwork between yourself and the employing / company paying you. Surely that is fundamental as the devil is in the detail..

The problem here is that you see the lack of signatures / paperwork as a good thing - I see it as the opposite as it allows the other side to provide anything they want as evidence with you having little to contradict it with.

I wonder who you work for? If this was the case why even go through the hassle of a written contract? I say ignore the fear mongering and treat it like any other spam you receive. I wish before their yachts sink that they get caught up in the moving propeller.

[eek]

I wonder who you work for? If this was the case why even go through the hassle of a written contract? I say ignore the fear mongering and treat it like any other spam you receive. I wish before their yachts sink that they get caught up in the moving propeller.

I don't work for anyone as Cojak and the other mods will confirm.. I post here as I feel there is a need to provide a rational logical approach when people are being emotional (so irrational) as the second half of your paragraph confirms. So when I returned after a few months away and saw people arguing that no signature meant no contract I felt it right to point out that courts won't see things that way.

As for the lack of a written contract - that was the entire point of those schemes, it's no different from the end of the Wizard of Oz where Toto pulls back the curtain and Dorothy discovers that the Wizard (scheme) is actually an old man. If you had seen the contract the cold light of day might have revealed how flaky the approach they were using was and might have given you time to see the clause that said the money you were receiving wasn't 85% of the contract value but a "loan" of 85% of the contract value.