Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (25689)	11/26/2007 10:03:05 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217749

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

To: Ilaine who wrote (25689)	11/26/2007 10:30:23 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217749

They obviously didn't read their contract. Or couldn't read it. <When I explained that after a "short sale" or a foreclosure or a deed in lieu of foreclosure, they'll still owe the bank at least $100K, maybe $150K, maybe $200K, they give me that uncomprehending look. The bank never mentioned that. > I click on "terms and conditions" for all sorts of things without reading them or skimming over them in case there is something weird. I depend on the safety of numbers and their brand reputation. I don't expect to be surprised by "Using this system even once acknowledges your liability to pay the providing company $1000 a month in perpetuity". It could be there, but I hope it isn't and assume it isn't and if it is, then I doubt they'd be able to enforce it. Mqurice