Enforceability of contracts Some credit hire agreements have been vulnerable to attack as unenforceable where the credit hire company has failed to comply with certain regulations, concerning either the agreement itself or the formalities. The significance of an agreement being unenforceable, as against the hirer, is that in such circumstances the hirer has suffered no loss and has no right to recovery. Consumer Credit Act and exempt agreements As was confirmed in the House of Lords in the case of Dimond v Lovell, such hire agreements are credit agreements and are subject to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974) (as amended by the Consumer Credit Act 2006) unless the terms meet the conditions for exemption. If the agreement is found not to be exempt, and is therefore a regulated agreement, it is likely to be found to be improperly executed, pursuant to CCA 1974, s 61(1)(a) for failing to state the 'total cash price for the services' at that stage. However, the Court of Appeal in Clark v Tull (trading as Ardington Electrical Services)