Question

In the opening scenario, the bank demanded $5000 from poor Sam for his Jeep that had been repossessed and sold to someone else. As we have seen, Article 9 gives the bank the right to demand this payment. But is that fair? Should Article 9 change, so that a person like Sam does not have to pay? Or is the law reasonable now?

Answer 1

S bought a jeep and after making several payments, he failed to make rest of the payments. Bank repossessed the jeep and sold it in auction and then asked S to deposit the remaining amount.

 

In the mentioned case, law is not unfair to Person S; as the car deprecates quickly so even after making several payments and giving up car, S is still entitled to pay the remaining amount.

 

Although, in this case, law should be little flexible as S had already given several payments along with his car, and he was still liable for more payments. In this case, bank is availing all the benefits and S is at loss. Therefore, in order to protect the consumers’ interest, little flexibility should be granted to Person S.

In order to protect the consumers’ interest, little flexibility should be granted to Person S.