Can a corporation terminate my account, just because I keep complaining on legitimate issues? For privacy, I don't want to identify which discount broker in Canada. Last week, I received this surprising letter. Based on information received by our Compliance Department, we have decided to terminate our relationship with you. You are advised to close your account by May 21, 2021. I answered all questions on my account opening application truthfully. I'm a Canadian citizen and permanent resident in Canada. I can think of just one reason for Broker to terminate my contract. I emailed their Compliance Department multiple times because their service keeps getting disrupted and their customer service is so shoddy. They never improved, so then I emailed Head of Compliance. Their phone lines are always busy – no reasonable person can wait for hours. Their trading software glitches! Their staff don't answer emails punctually – obviously customers shouldn't have to chase for replies! When they do reply, they apologized. They never denied my complaints, or ask me to stop complaining – not once! But I know it's difficult to prove that Broker terminated my contract just because I complained against them. Broker's lawyers can just fabricate some legitimate reason for closing my account.
Whether or not you are entitled to maintain the account in perpetuity depends on the contract. Most likely they have the right under the terms of the contract to unilaterally close the account, just as you have that right – you don't have to justify closing your account. So the first thing to do is check the contract. The second thing to do is determine the actual reason, if they are willing to offer a reason. They (probably) cannot maintain an account for a person who is not a permanent resident of Canada, and they may not have the required evidence that you are a permanent resident of Canada.
They can't simply keep the money; that's against the law. But in a situation like this, it's easy to get lost in the bureaucracy. The company may be in violation of different laws, re: For Your Information | United States Department of Labor, so you can try pointing this out in another email or letter. The threat of the Feds or other enforcement agency looking into the matter may make something happen. Or, try this: find the CEO (or a similarly high-ranked executive) on LinkedIn; many have open messaging in interest of good PR. Message/email them and carefully (and nicely) explain the situation. (A CEO will likely have an assistant monitoring their LinkedIn account. But, there are many stories of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos personally responding to emails.) Someone will make it happen and the employees who have not been helpful will be in hot water.
Can you have valid Terms and Condictions when there is no entity mentioned? No, but the example you post is inapplicable because the terms clearly state in the beginning that the agreement is between &quot;you&quot; and &quot;Binance operators&quot;. The latter is defined shortly thereafter. Thus, it certainly identifies the entity. A contract does not need to exhaustively list all information such as parties' registration(s) or domicile. As long as a reasonable person is able to grasp who are the entities entering a contract, that contract is binding and enforceable. If it cannot be ascertained from the contract who the counterparty(-ies) is(are), then neither party can prove that he and other entity(-ies) knowingly and willfully agreed to an exchange of considerations or promises thereof. Accordingly, nobody would have standing to sue others for breach of contract.
They are still in business because they went to the agencies that regulate them and sought exemptions and waivers from the requirements that they not have criminal convictions. Certain highly regulated industries, like the banking and securities (stocks, bonds, etc.) industries require the companies, their executives, and individual people be licensed. Usually, individuals and companies with a history of "bad behavior", are denied licensure. Each industries regulations and laws define what that bad behavior is, but a felony conviction for a financial related crime certainly meets that definition. However, being denied a license or booted from the industry is not automatic. The agencies that enforce these regulations, have the ability to continue to license someone who has a felony conviction. I know I am speaking in general terms, but let us look at the securities industry for a specific example. Under the Investment Company Act of 1940, companies that manage investments/mutual funds, like J.P. Morgan &amp; Chase, Co. must be licensed by the Securities and Exchange Commission. To paraphrase, Section 9(a) of the 1940 Act, it says that individuals cannot control or manage an investment company if they had a felony conviction on the past 10 years. It goes on to state that those same requirements apply to companies meaning they are denied a license. But, section 9(c) allows “people” (which includes companies) that are prohibited from being licensed to get an exemption from these rules through the SEC's administrative process. Here, JP Morgan and the other companies mentioned in the press release are big players in the securities industry. All of them manage mutual funds and buy/sell securities for clients. Therefore, they each applied and received this exemption at the same time or right before they pleaded guilty so it wouldn’t disrupt their business. Here are the administrative orders from the SEC’s website dealing with this exact issue. J.P. Morgan Chase &amp; Co., et al. - Notice of Application and Temporary Order Release No. IC 31613; File No. 812-14466 The permanent order: SEC Release No. IC - 31674 If you’re interested in the law that applies, these orders are a good place to start. Also, here is a less detailed article on this issue in the NY Times.
Do I have standing to sue a credit bureau or lender after being approved for a loan but being prevented from signing due to their error? Unfortunately, no. The email you got from the loan agency reflects that no contract was formed yet. The email merely is the loan agency's expression of interest to proceed toward the formation of that contract. Absent that formation of the contract, even if for reasons beyond your control, you are not entitled to the benefits or consideration(s) the contract would provide. Nor would the lender be entitled to your compliance with the terms of that contract, terms which might not even be informed --let alone known-- to you. There is no legal obligation from one party to the other. Lastly, the agency's or bureau's faulty process/questionnaire is not actionable either. Lender's reluctance to employ an alternative method is within his freedom of contract.
Usually I would think one answer to a question is enough. But since your edits have transformed a reasonable procedural question into what appears to be a rant about unfairness of the sort which any bankruptcy court has heard hundreds of times before, I will give another piece of advice: Focus on one thing at a time. The judge at the hearing of the application will be deciding (if your question is accurate) the single point whether a house should be sold. The submission "There is an application to annul the bankruptcy to be heard on XXX; if it succeeds this application is a waste of money and if it fails there will still be time for this application before the time limit, so you should adjourn till YYY" is a reasonable one that he will take into account. Saying "The bankruptcy order should never have been made; it was a mistake by my accountants and HMRC, and a High Court Judge joined in the conspiracy" will get you precisely nowhere. Even if the judge believed you rather than the written evidence, it has no bearing on the point he is being asked to decide. More generally; besides casting your arguments into proper shape, there is another good reason to consult a professional, namely that he can tell you when to give up. The courts are bound by laws and regulations; however unfair you may think the result, at some point it is necessary to accept the reality rather than wasting time and money making points that the law cares nothing about. (And no, I see no point discussing this further in comments. This answer can be upvoted if you think it helpful or downvoted if you think it "not useful"; it isn't something to argue against.)
Can the seller enter a formal agreement with the tenants in which the seller pays a sum of money and in return the tenants vacate the premises before the closing date, and would such agreement hold over the tenants legal right to remain on premises past the closing date? Maybe. It depends on tenancy law in Nova Scotia. Notwithstanding, given that the tenants are “difficult”, what are your plans if they take the cash and don’t move out? What happens if the sale goes though under the assumption that the tenants have left, and in fact the tenants are still occupying the premises? Why would the buyer settle under an “assumption”? At the time of settlement either the tenants have left (so settlement happens) or the haven’t (so the vendor is in breach, settlement doesn’t happen and the buyer decides whether to rescind the contract and claim damages or affirm the contract and claim damages). What guarantees and proofs can the buyer demand as to the vacant status of the property? They take the keys and walk into it. What other questions should the buyer be asking? They should be asking: “Will you be in a position to fulfil your obligations under the contract?”
is there any legal action I can take against the dealership to enforce their compliance with our contractual agreement? Yes, you can sue for breach of contract. You would probably seek an order for specific performance. You could also claim damages but it is difficult to see exactly what damage you have suffered. Is there a reasonable timeline that they must deliver within if a date is not specified in the contract? Yes, where a contract is silent on a date for performance of an obligation they must be carried out in a reasonable time. From the circumstances 4 months is starting to seem unreasonable but they will no doubt argue that it is reasonable- this is something the court would decide.