As you know, I'm not a lawyer, not even a bush lawyer, but when, decades ago, we were given a bit of contract law, there were some principles which seemed to me perfectly reasonable and obvious.
For contracts to be legal, they can't be based on fraud, they must be between mentally competent people, and there are other strictures.
I suppose the "clever" people who sold the bill of goods were well aware of such things and couched their encouragement for the gullible to sign in terms of hope and glory rather than deceit. There's nothing wrong with hope, being positive and all that. But at some stage, such as Bernie Schwartz making claims that Globalstar was "on plan", courts and juries decide that it's not so much wishful thinking or being positive as deceit and dishonesty.
I have no idea what "mentally competent" means, but it always excludes children under 18 or some age below which consent can't be granted. I suppose it includes drunkeness, insanity, dementia, etc. It should include "A reasonable expectation that the person didn't have a bloody clue what they were getting themselves into and any half-witted counter party could have seen that, especially a smart-alecky lawyer, real estate salesperson, housing company or bank lender".
If mortgagors have lied in their application for loans, I suppose that makes them very vulnerable to being left to the outcome of their own crookedness. But even then, I can imagine a sales person egging them on to inflate their income, "everybody does it", so they could get the loan in which case I would assign some liability to the sales person.
As a cautious, prudent and frugal person, I do NOT wish to have my taxes used to subsidize idiots who got themselves in trouble. But I could understand a judge splitting the loan into relative liability on the part of the lender and borrower.
All very sad for those involved who are ignorant and really are guided by banks, sales people, housing companies, lawyers, and other "professionals" who have the ethical standards of a frog.
Mqurice |
