“commercial purposes” is not defined; We do not think that would be helpful. This would either exclude Column 12 from the regulation of certain consumer transactions, or it would mean that many transactions for commercial purposes would continue to be regulated. The best people to determine the purpose of the credit are the parties to the agreement. The new subsection (2) provides that a person may, under the agreement, declare that the credit is either entirely or primarily for commercial purposes. Such a statement suggests that the loan is for commercial purposes. Under the new subsection (3), the presumption does not apply where the lender or any person acting on its behalf knows or reasonably assumes that the loan is not entirely or primarily for commercial purposes. Lender – “This is an unregulated document your honor, I don`t need it! Mr. Justice Burton stated that, as the 1974 Act was explicitly mentioned in the agreements, such references could not be ignored. He also rejected the argument that only the 1974 Act had been included in his present. He said the parties knew that they had linked their agreements to a regulatory regime that would change over time. He found that when provisions of the 1974 Act suspend or qualify explicit terms in the agreements, it is as if those conditions were established from the agreements.
He was satisfied that the references to the 1974 Act in these agreements were as contractual for amounts greater than $25,000 as for amounts less than $25,000. Justice Burton justified this decision by the fact that the defendants claimed to have entered into contracts “whether or not”. He concluded that the agreements, whether regulated or not, should be treated as if loan contracts of $25,000 and less than $25,000 were treated in the same way. This included, as of October 1, 2008, regular S77A CCA (s77A) returns for regulated fixed credit agreements concluded before and after that date. The applicant submitted s77A statements on regulated and unregulated agreements. The applicant, Northern Rock Asset Management PLC, which succeeded the Northern Rock Building Society in 1997, entered into a large number of unsecured credit contracts under a product called Together Mortgage between 1999 and March 2008. This allowed consumers to borrow up to 95% of the value of their home on a secure basis, and then another fixed amount of unsecured loans up to 30% of the value of their home, limited to $30,000. The interest on the unsecured loan was calculated at the same rate as for the secured portion. The defendants for this procedure were two of those borrowers who took out the maximum credit of $30,000.
The applicant breached his obligations under the reporting agreements that did not correspond to s77A and the non-repayment or repayment of interest or arrears paid during periods of non-compliance.