It is currently Wed Jun 03, 2020 12:43 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 6:57 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:19 am
Posts: 1687
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€

_________________
David Szwak
Chairman, Consumer Protection Section, Louisiana State Bar Association
Bodenheimer, Jones & Szwak
509 Market Street, 7th Floor
Mid South Tower
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101
318-221-6444
Fax 318-221-6555


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 7:21 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:19 am
Posts: 1687
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€

_________________
David Szwak
Chairman, Consumer Protection Section, Louisiana State Bar Association
Bodenheimer, Jones & Szwak
509 Market Street, 7th Floor
Mid South Tower
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101
318-221-6444
Fax 318-221-6555


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group