56 The defendant submits that the only loss asserted in the indorsement to the Goldthorpe writ of summons is the damage that the plaintiffs might incur as a result of being liable to be prosecuted under the Credit Act, s 160, as the indorsement does not indicate whether the plaintiffs were either prosecuted or became liable to any penalty as a result of any such prosecution. The defendant has adduced evidence to the effect that the Goldthorpes have not been prosecuted for breaches of the Credit Act. Thus, the defendant says that the writ of summons and its indorsement does not disclose a reasonable cause of action against the defendant because the plaintiffs have not suffered any actual loss or damage as a result of the defendant's breach of its tortious duty. The defendant says that the entitlement to damages with respect to a cause of action in tort does not arise at a point where there is a potentiality of loss and damage, but only when actual loss and damage occurs. The defendant submits that as the indorsement only contains an allegation of contingent loss and damage, it does not allege that any actual loss and damage has occurred. Further, the three year limitation period for prosecutions under the Credit Act has long expired and there is no evidence to suggest that the Attorney General may extend the period within which a prosecution may be brought pursuant to his discretion in the Credit Act, s 159. Thus, the defendant says that no cause of action is disclosed by the Goldthorpe writ and it is not now capable of amendment to introduce a cause of action.