It is currently Fri Sep 18, 2020 5:08 pm

All times are UTC

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:55 am 
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:19 am
Posts: 1687
Based on a simple public policy determination, as between an innocent consumer and a third party financier, the latter is generally in a vastly superior position: [1] to return the cost to the seller, where it properly belongs, [2] to exert an influence over the behavior of the seller in the first place, and [3] to the extent the financier cannot return the cost [as in the case of fly-by-night dealers], to 'internalize' the cost by spreading it among all consumers as an increase in the price of credit. Hardeman v. Wheels, Inc., 56 Ohio App.3d 142, 565 N.E.2d 849, 852 [Ohio App. 1988] [quoting 2 Fonseca, Handling Consumer Credit Cases [3 Ed.1987] 703, Section 24:1]; Alduridi v. Community Trust Bank, N.A., 1999 WestLaw 969644 [Tenn. Ct. App. 1999]. Knowing that it bears the cost of seller misconduct, the creditor "will simply not accept the risks generated by the truly unscrupulous merchant. The market will be policed in this fashion and all parties will benefit accordingly." M.Greenfield and N. Ross, Limits on a Consumer's Ability to Assert Claims and Defenses Under the FTC's Holder in Due Course Rule, 46 Bus.Law. 1135, 1137 n.11 [1991].

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

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 

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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group