Judgment Day

I have been a barrister for nearly 30 years. In that time I have seen many trends, fashions, fads and changes. Some of lasting significance. Some of which have been and gone. Always however, is a constant of technological change. Take this blog for example. It was started in 2014. It would have been possible to start it a few years earlier, but it would not have been possible to publish online in this way, in 1996, when we were all using dialup modems.

But change continues, and thank goodness that it does. How dull it would be to keep doing the same thing, day in, day out, without relief. And on the event horizon now, are very significant changes indeed. One such change that I am investigating at the moment is the use of artificial intelligence in legal practice. An obvious potential application is using it to write blog articles, in order to both do the research, and to pump out the prose. So here are the instructions I gave to ChatGPT.

Write an article on enforceability in credit hire claims. Explain the difference between an illegal contract and an unenforceable contract. Summarise and explain the case of Dimond v Lovell. Identify and quote the key passages in the judgment. Summarise and explain the case of Wilson v First County Trust. Identify and quote the key passages in the judgment. Quote the full text of section 127 (3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Explain the effect of section 127(3). Explain when section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 was repealed. Explain the effect of the repeal. Explain how an unenforceable credit hire agreement may be enforced by the court. Summarise and explain the case of W v Veolia. Summarise the effect of an unenforceable credit hire agreement today. Give 4 opinions as to how the law might be reformed.

And here is the text of the article:

Enforceability in credit hire claims is a complex legal landscape, often involving the distinction between illegal and unenforceable contracts. Understanding the nuances of these terms is crucial in navigating the intricacies of credit hire agreements. Let’s delve into the legal intricacies surrounding this issue, exploring key cases and legislative provisions.

Illegal Contracts vs. Unenforceable Contracts:

An illegal contract involves an agreement that violates the law or public policy. Such contracts are void and unenforceable from the outset. On the other hand, an unenforceable contract is one that is valid when formed, but some factor prevents its enforcement in a court of law.

Dimond v Lovell:

In the case of Dimond v Lovell, the court explored the enforceability of credit hire agreements. The judgment emphasized the importance of compliance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and established that a failure to adhere to statutory requirements could render a credit agreement unenforceable.

Key passages from the judgment include:

“It is trite law that a debtor can recover back money paid under a credit agreement that is improperly executed.”

This case highlighted the significance of proper execution of credit agreements for their enforceability.

Wilson v First County Trust:

In Wilson v First County Trust, the court dealt with issues related to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the consequences of non-compliance. The judgment underscored the importance of strict adherence to statutory requirements for credit agreements.

Key passages from the judgment include:

“The consequences of non-compliance with section 127 are, as I see it, intended to be draconian.”

This case reinforced the strict approach of the courts when it comes to enforcing credit agreements in line with statutory provisions.

Consumer Credit Act 1974 – Section 127(3):

The text of Section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 reads:

“The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).”

Effect of Section 127(3):

Section 127(3) acts as a safeguard for consumers, requiring strict compliance with the signing of agreements. If this provision is not adhered to, the court may not issue an enforcement order.

Repeal of Section 127(3):

Section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 was repealed by the Financial Services Act 2012. This repeal had significant implications for the enforceability of credit agreements.

Effect of the Repeal:

The repeal of Section 127(3) removed a hurdle for enforcing credit agreements, making it less stringent for claimants to seek enforcement even in cases of non-compliance with the signing requirements.

Enforcing Unenforceable Credit Hire Agreements:

Post-repeal, an unenforceable credit hire agreement may still find its way to enforcement if the court deems it just and equitable. This flexibility allows for a more balanced approach, considering the circumstances surrounding the agreement.

W v Veolia:

In the case of W v Veolia, the court acknowledged the possibility of enforcing an unenforceable credit hire agreement if it is just and equitable to do so. This case highlighted the court’s discretionary power in such matters.

Current Landscape:

Today, an unenforceable credit hire agreement may still be enforced by the court, taking into account the circumstances and fairness.

Opinions on Law Reform:

  1. Stricter Compliance: Some argue for even stricter compliance requirements to protect consumers and maintain the integrity of credit agreements.
  2. Balancing Enforcement: Others advocate for a balanced approach, allowing enforcement based on equitable considerations, even in cases of technical non-compliance.
  3. Clearer Regulations: Reform could involve clearer regulations to avoid ambiguity and ensure parties understand their obligations.
  4. Alternative Dispute Resolution: Implementing alternative dispute resolution mechanisms may offer a more efficient and cost-effective way to resolve credit hire disputes.


In conclusion, the landscape of enforceability in credit hire claims is shaped by a delicate balance between legal requirements, court discretion, and considerations of fairness. The evolution of laws and cases reflects an ongoing effort to strike the right balance in protecting the rights of both parties involved in credit hire agreements.

It will be observed that the computer has made a number of mistakes.


If you have any thoughts on the use of Artificial Intelligence in pursuing and litigating credit hire claims, do drop me a line. I would be interested to hear your views.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.