Class in Session: Lesson 6

I would like to talk in detail about the lender’s contract but I do not have a copy. If one of you would like to mail me a copy I will go through it and highlight the misstatements, the omissions, the false and misleading statements, and the general bad faith in the document. Please send me the Fannie Mae uniform contract which would be most applicable to the largest group of victims. In the UCC there are degrees to validate an agreement. It would be helpful to view these as paint that must be applied on the canvas of good faith and fair dealing. If they are not sealed to this canvas the pictured agreement will be flaked and chipped and obviously be exposed as faulty. From the most hearty paint to the thinnest lets look at the Lenders dealings with its victim to see the resulting picture. The paramount way to understand the intent of the agreement is the expressed terms or the written instrument. I will dissect this in detail in a future lesson after one is received. What is important is that the expression in words is a truthful honest-in-fact description of the duties and obligations of the parties reflecting the real agreement that was obtained through knowledgeable informed consent. Any authorization becomes suspect if honesty is absent. Next in line is Course of Performance this deals with the conduct after or under the agreement. This could conflict with the expressed terms and be evidence of a different agreement between the parties. Next is Course of Dealing, which deals with the conduct before the agreement and may enter the agreement either by explicit performance or by tacit recognition. Last is usage of trade, which is really the habits, and rules of an industry. Though this is the weakest evidence of the agreement it was one of the loudest arguments. You’ve seen it on this blog. “Everybody does it that way, everyone knows money is lent, if it is wrong why does the government sanction it?” This is not a defense if an unconscionable or dishonest practice should become standard. Any violation in these 4 areas creates an action for the aggrieved party. This is what Dorean was addressing with its self-help remedy. All 4 areas if looked at individually or collectively expose dishonesty-in-fact and bad faith. Beyond this may be a malicious intent to defraud. Prevailing will expose this rat. If you are an honest person you will easily discover things are not what are professed to be. One of the surest ways to know you hit a nerve is the accusation “you are a cheat who wants something for nothing.” This is the banker’s tool taught well to their political cronies. Get the spotlight off you by accusing your opponent of your actions. In their foolish world first to accuse is ridiculed and the retort gets all the attention. Remember their world is stupid and not supported by their commercial code.