• The post you are reporting:
   
  Peter, I know not where you get this "in good faith" from. However...
  
  As you (each & all) are, no doubt, aware... The getting of a mortgage does not equate with the buying of a property. It is but an agreement to pay a hefty sum over the asking price over many years while living in and maintaining the 'asset', an asset which belongs to the bank until such times as the mortgage debt is cleared. [in a rising market there will come a point when at default the bank sells the joint asset and shares any profit with you (If memory serves. Someone will put me right I'm sure, if I am wide of the mark)
  IF.
  The bank because, now as in the 18th century, it is indemnified against all losses, seeks out and accepts to do business with persons who could not reasonably be expected to fulfil their part of the agreement can it be equitable for all the losses to borne by the mortgagee?
  
  Truly we cannot glibly accept that simply because a contract is entered into that each party does so in full possession of the facts and are equal before the law. The fact that this is how usurers and loan-sharks operate should be warning enough of the intrinsic wrong in so thinking.

Report Post

Your Name

Reason