What seems to be the issue

If you can grasp the concept of how a contract is established and is enacted, it could be argued that if a party subject to the contract takes an action that is detrimental to any other party in the contract. More importantly that they have knowledge of the likely outcome of such an action. It's a breach of contract, or it's a predatory first strike, as I'm suggesting in my case.

Barclays bank after I told them waht happened, chose to destroy me and sieze my home, at the same time I was coming to terms with a Aquired Brain Injury, was in a legal action to claim compensation for having been nearly killed. All of which I explained to the Bank

After I explained this to the bank and they confirmed that any action, they took where in thed interest of the shareholders. I went on to point out that this would put them in a direct collision course with me. As we could not be in a contract that they chose to not abide by. Based therefore on the balance of probability, the bank in this case has put it's customers in default to sieze any assest, gain the upper hand in a position and use it's power to force the victim into submission. This somewhat changes the sub text of being in contract and makes it appear that your being held up by a stickupman... As the outcome is a highly likely action the bank would take, bearing in mind they want everything what you've bought and paid for with money you earnt and if the assest has increased in value they'll take that as well... for good measure...

We should look at "How do contracts work", contracts are usually formed in three parts.

1. what is discussed and then actioned and moved towards

2. the evidence of intent initial paperwork that is needed to clarify the position of both parties and proof of affordability in cases of a mortgage

3. the paperwork which includes the contract and terms

Lots of companies seem to think all they need is a peice of paper with your signature on it, that everything that went before isn't important and so can be thrown away. However they are wrong, for example let's imagine two parties a pie maker makes and sells pies, and a prospective purchaser. who approaches and asks what pies are on offer, what cost these pies are

The pie maker says I have beef, beef and vegetable and vegetable pies and all the pies are £5 each as per my example on the counter

Where do you think things can go wrong? and at what point is the contract started.

Answers

At the point of expressing an interest, would be the simple answer.

What could go wrong

Lots of things, the prospect could grab a pie and runoff, use a promissary note that is based on a lie or use fake money to buy the pie, in this instance the fault clearly rests with the prospect they have more than likely set out to take this action.

What if the pie maker made the pies with illegal, dangerous or otherwise harmful produce, effectively a poisonous pie that kills the purchaser...? whom they then turn into more pies? would this be the fault of the purchaser..?

The only defence would exist if the pie maker has all his paperwork, sources of the ingredients and a recipe that is followed to ensure a quality product is produced each and everytime....

If the piemaker can't on demand show their process, ingredients list. Then based on the balance of probabilty it's more than likely that the piemaker set out from the start to harm anyone that passed by.