We believe, for example, that the proposal contained in the clause is preferable to what is proposed in the new Term 13, which purports to deal with the landlord on the same basis as our proposals in the amendment accepted by the government, which is now part of Clause 1 and deals with the tenant. In this context, I ask the House what the result is. This means – and this is a justified objection – that an owner who terminates the contract, perhaps at an early stage, after a very small number of payments have been paid, due to the new clause 13, accepts a compensation process for himself, which, in any case, follows from the position of the 1938 Act; that the tenant must pay at least half of the purchase price. In principle, I don`t like it. How the agreement is terminated affects the final amount due upon termination of the agreement. Where the buyer terminates the contract and voluntarily returns the goods, the amount to be paid should be less than half the amount indicated in the contract, less an amount paid. In the absence of contributions, they must be paid. I said at second reading that we had introduced the best bill we could do in the circumstances of the time, but I was quite willing to study this issue in depth – and the department was already working on it – to see if there should be a change to the general rules for selling credit or buying rentals and whether we should move to another system. A Supreme Court appeal, filed by FLAC on behalf of a consumer, clarified the rights of tenants when terminating lease purchase agreements. Judge Michael Hanna`s judgment in this case in the High Court on Wednesday 27 July 2011 finds that when a consumer wishes to terminate or terminate an instalment purchase contract prematurely, financial firms cannot insist on the payment of arrears or the payment of a deficit before accepting the return of goods.
§ Sovi as termination by the tenant. I turn to the resignation of the owner. This case is covered by this new Clause 9 and the new Clause 12. In this case, I do not accept that it can even theoretically be said that, in all cases, the tenant`s liability must be assessed on the basis of what is called the actual measure of the damage. Termination by the owner may take place in various circumstances. On the one hand, the conduct of Tenant 433 may have shown that he did not intend to enter into the agreement – which would amount to a refusal; But then, in the other extreme, the tenant can only have committed a minor offense. The opposition must not take silence on these benches as a voice in favour of its proposal. For my part, like many honourable friends, I strongly support the government. I do so because new paragraphs 9 and 12, which must provide for what is called a true measure of injury, both depend on the determination of the value of the goods.
If you take the value of a car that was taken away and sold as a retired car, its value as such is very often slightly higher than its scrap value, but its value to the renter before the withdrawal would be much more than that figure. Because of this difference, the so-called true level of damage in practice 442 is often detrimental to the tenant and inevitably leads to legal disputes that penalize the tenant. Honestly, if one of the three new clauses were accepted, I think the legal position would be considerably improved, but I support the new clause that has been postponed by my honourable Member. Friend, Liverpool Member, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). As he said, an amendment has already been tabled, namely Article 1(5), which deals with the position of the tenant, and I believe that the amendment contained in this clause leads in any case, to some extent, to accepting the principle that the true measure of harm is examination. .