It always comes back to the band in the end to get something done
Senate Passes Financial Reform
By Donny Shaw for OpenCongress
The Senate this afternoon voted 60-38 to end debate on the landmark Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protections Act. The vote on final passage of the bill, which only required a simple majority of 51 “ayes,” passed as expected, sending
It takes Congress time to agree on something like this so give them some real credit for making it happen.
Now what?
I do not know how many know this so I’ll add some bits. To make it easy, the basic definition of “illegal” in business terms is anything that is detrimental (bad) for the general welfare of society.
That is a very useful definition in understanding how the new laws – which I admit I have not had time to look at – may impact society in positive and negative ways.
The Uniform Commercial Code 1-205
“Course of dealing and usage of trade. A course of dealing is a sequence of previous conduct between the parties to a transaction which is fairly to be regarded as establishing a common basis of understanding for interpreting their expressions and other conduct”
And there is precedent in court cases of the 1960s ample to realize. That fine print does not lead to a common basis of understanding as it favors those educated in such jargon and who have the patience to read small letters.
In such cases signed contracts may be nullified as “unconscionable” not fair in other words. All those extra charges and fees that show up on your bill – any deception or hidden terms can be dismissed in court by demonstrating that whatever those terms are – were not made clear to me at time of signing.
And it should put the burden of proof on the other side to show the court how they figured that you understood those charges would be in the fine print and why they assumed you would understand the jargon if you even bothered to read it.
So (2) of that
(3) A course of dealing between parties and any usage of trade in the vocation or trade …:” outside of your job, and field in other words if not “the contract be supplemented or qualified ” — the contract terms must be explained to you in a manner you can understand based on your job, education, and similar.
Signed or not, if there was stuff you did not understand because you are not a contract attorney – your signature seems to only be valid if everything was explained in laymans terms until you indicated you understood all of it.
If dealing with this has caused harm and you have receipts – lawyer bills, doctor bills, etc. It looks clear you are entitled to not just having the contract found to be void but you get some payment back for being the one hurt. Having collection agencies and time spent dealing with the issue.
2-210-3-b
The court may grant appropriate relief by canceling the contract and add reparations to be made to you.
and
2-203 Obligations of good faith
or that both parties will carry out their end as they said they would.
If you sign, it may be wise to write down the terms as you understand and have the other side sign and date along with yourself that you both agree your understanding is correct.
And that small signed paper I think is all you need to show the court. Because that paper becomes the contract. Yeah, you have the right to submit a counter proposal.
So itemize the terms as you understand them, ask if it your understanding is correct or have them explain what is not. By them signing That is the real contract.
This will be explained in further posts.
