This isn't even anything to do with the law this is literally a contract that they are planning to violate. They do not actually believe that there is some grand conspiracy against them they are just using that as an excuse to try and do whatever the hell they want.
They would be a threat if it weren't for the fact that they collectively have the brains of an ostrich.
Now, I'm not the greatest fans of mortgages because of what they represent, and the fact that a good chunk of a country's economic well-being is dependant on people forking out a big proportion of their take home pay to have somewhere to live, but...
It's frustrating to see so many people labour and stress about meeting thresholds and jumping through hoops to get a mortgage in principle, let alone find a home that they can make an accepted offer on, and these chuckle fucks make it difficult for everyone to go through the same process, much post the changes introduced in 2007 (admittedly for different but related reasons).
In court, if a case is dismissed without prejudice, it means that the case could be retried in some fashion. If it is dismissed with prejudice, then it can't be retried (the plaintiff can't bring new charges or modify charges for this particular issue).
So I think what they believe it means is that signing "without prejudice" means that the signature on the contract can be revoked at anytime nulling their contractual obligations. I may be wrong of course but that's just my guess.
Not sure why they just didn't buy the house outright without a loan in the first place with this so-called "BC Trust" and make it less complicated and cheaper for their made up magic money account.
You're probably thinking too deep into this. They probably know prejudice is a bad thing, and heard the term "dismissed without prejudice" at one point, and thought that without prejudice is obviously good.
They're just vomiting legal words onto paper hoping it makes magic happen.
He figured they had to actually serve him the papers for it to be legal.
The worst part is you try explaining that's not how it works to someone like that, but they will still take the legal advice of a co-workers second cousin's family friend's nephew just because that's what they want to hear.
