Question

Larry London (LL) buys a computer with his new store credit card at Greatest Get (GG). GG immediately sells the right to receive monthly payments from LL to a finance company, Friendly Finance (FF). Unfortunately for LL, the computer stops working three months after he purchased it. As GG won’t return his calls regarding his broken PC, LL stops making payments. Long story short, all stakeholders (LL, GG, and FF) are fed up with each other’s behavior; they all lawyer up.
you represent GG

Answer 1

In this particular instance, as allegedly claimed by Larry London(LL), the computer sold by the Greatest Get(GG) has been found to be defective after three months of purchase and the negligence on the part of GG has resulted in the termination of installment payment for the concerned computer purchased. Now, as a legal representative of GG, any legal advice or subsequent pleasure would practically rest on the terms and conditions of the official sales contract prepared during the time of the sale or purchase of the concerned computer. On the basis of the information provided in the question, it has been officially decided and corroborated by both LL and GG that GG immediately and unconditionally obtains the right to receive the monthly payment for the purchase from LL regardless of any specific additional considerations or stipulations pertaining to product quality, condition, performance, warranty, and/or return policy/s. Therefore, based on the assumption of an unconditional agreement between LL and GG regarding the payment rights for the purchase, LL is legally liable to continue the monthly installment purchase payment to GG mainly on the ground of the legal right granted to GG to receive the installment payments. Furthermore, since LL has already obtained the possession of the concerned computer and has started using it, it is legally and officially liable to pay the purchase payment in its entirety within the specified time period mandated in the sales contract. However, relaxing or deviating from the argumentative assumptions based on the information provided in the question, if the sales contract or agreement between LL and GG clearly and unambiguously stipulates any terms and conditions regarding the product quality, performance, return policies, and warranty during the post-purchase period, then GG as the seller, would have to thoroughly abide by those concerned legal mandates. In this context, if GG has legally promised or ascertained any warranty period to LL and by the time LL has detected the computer defect or its non-functionality is within the warranty period, then LL is legally justifiable to ask for the return of the overall purchase payment that it has made to LL thus far or cease the subsequent or remaining payments. However, such concrete actions further are legally contingent on the specific terms and conditions of the warranty policy, in this case. Alternatively, if the legal sales contract clearly acknowledges the return policy of the concerned computer upon any justifiable reason put forward and sufficiently and reasonably proved by the buyer, then LL can also return it back to GG and legally claim the amount of the purchase payment back from GG, which again conditionally depends on the specific money-back terms and conditions stipulated under the return policy. Nonetheless, confining the discussion within the boundaries of the information provided in the question, it appears to be legally justifiable for GG to claim the subsequent monthly purchase payments from LL, mainly based on the ground of the final product possession and its usage.