myfairdebt.com
http://www.myfairdebt.com/forum/

Jaramillo v. Gonzales: Mobile Home Case
http://www.myfairdebt.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=247&t=1044
Page 1 of 1

Author:  admin [ Mon Nov 27, 2006 6:57 am ]
Post subject:  Jaramillo v. Gonzales: Mobile Home Case

Jaramillo v. Gonzales,
132 N.M. 459, 50 P.3d 554, 49 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 159, 2002 -NMCA- 072, N.M.App., April 09, 2002 (No. 21,180.)

Buyers of mobile home brought action against lien holder, as assignee of seller, for breach of express and implied warranties, revocation of acceptance, violation of the Unfair Practices Act (UPA), breach of contract for failure to acknowledge the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) holder clause in the contract, and defamation. The District Court, Santa Fe County, Michael E. Vigil, D.J., granted revocation and awarded damages. Lien holder appealed, and buyers cross-appealed. The Court of Appeals, Fry, J., held that: (1) evidence supported finding that buyers' revocation of acceptance was reasonable; (2) buyers were not required to show that mobile home had little or no value when it was delivered to them before asserting their claims against lien holder; (3) refusal of lien holder to acknowledge its liability to buyers under FTC Holder Rule amounted to a “false representationâ€

Author:  admin [ Mon Nov 27, 2006 7:21 am ]
Post subject: 

1. Pratt v. North Dixie Manufactured Housing, Ltd.,
Not Reported in N.E.2d, 2003 WL 21040658, 2003 -Ohio- 2363, Ohio App. 6 Dist., May 09, 2003 (No. WD-02-054.)

...Credit 92BI In General 92Bk 17 k. Effect of Violation of Regulations or Lack of License. Lender for purchase of mobile home was not derivatively liable for any violation by seller of the Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA), where the contract did not contain a preservation of claims and defenses clause required by the Federal Trade Commission's FTC holder rule designed to abrogate the holder-in-due-course doctrine. R.C. §§ 1345.01 5725.01 16 C.F.R. § 433...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Bombardier Capital, Inc. v. Williams,
850 So.2d 363, Ala.Civ.App., November 08, 2002 (2010350.)

...Bombardier in their suit against the Williams. [1] [2] Bombardier argues that by the language of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTCâ€

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/