Sorry for the delay responding here but I have been ill the last few days.
The above is not in my defence.
Would you mind elaborating on:
The fact remains:
(i) The clause is potentially unenforceable for lack of consideration;
(ii) You have not signed it in your personal capacity therefore under the Statue of Frauds you have not validly accepted liability for the debt your personal capacity.
The claimant have said in their witness statement that the personal guarantee is separate to opening the account. They also said that I couldn't close the account even if I wanted to because I was no longer an officer of the company. Surely they can't have it both ways and say that I signed as a director but also personally all in one signature.
Would I be correct in thinking they really needed to have two signatures on the form for it to be effective personally. It is my believe that me signing as a director and putting on the form Postition: Director then I am acting in a completely different legal identity to my personal one?
They have also provided a county court case where they won against another director and the judge agreed that it was signed so the director was liable from a personal point of view. This is worrying but am I right to say it is not a precedent as it has not come from a higher court. Also this is slightly different because the guy was still a director of the company whereas I resigned years ago thus cancelling out the term "My Company" on the gaurantee section.
It seems they want the moon on a stick with this.
I have to submit my reply to their witness statement on Thursday so would appreciate it if you could provide a detailed response for the statute of fraud that I could use to argue along with any case law that may support me if you know of any that I can search for?
Many thanks for your help.