Question

In: Accounting

Case: Treadway v. Gateway Chevrolet Oldsmobile Inc. Facts: Gateway Chevrolet Oldsmobile (GCO), a car dealership, sent...

Case: Treadway v. Gateway Chevrolet Oldsmobile Inc.

Facts: Gateway Chevrolet Oldsmobile (GCO), a car dealership, sent an unsolicited letter to Tonja Treadway notifying her that she was “pre-approved” for the financing to purchase a car. Gateway did not provide financing itself; instead, it arranged loans through banks or finance companies.

Treadway called the dealer to say that she was interested in purchasing a used car. With her permission, Gateway obtained her credit report. Based on this report, the dealer determined that Treadway was not eligible for financing. This was not surprising, given that Gateway had purchased Treadway’s name from a list of people who had recently filed for bankruptcy.

Instead of applying for a loan on behalf of Treadway, Gateway told her that it had found a bank that would finance her transaction, but only if she purchased a new car and provided a co-signer. Treadway agreed to purchase a new car and came up with Pearlie Smith, her godmother, to serve as a co-signer.

Concerned as it was with customer service, Gateway had an agent deliver papers directly to smith’s house to be signed immediately. If Smith had read the papers before she signed them, she might have realized that she had committed herself to be the sole purchaser and owner of the car. But she had no idea that she was the owner until she began receiving bills on the car loan. After Treadway made the first payment on behalf of smith, both women refused to pay more – Smith because she did not want a new car; Treadway because the car was not hers. The car was repossessed, but the financing company continued to demand payment.

It appears that Gateway was running a scam. The dealership would lure desperate prospects off the bankruptcy rolls and into the showroom with promises of financing for a used car, and then sell a new car to their “co-signer”) who was, in fact, the sole signer). Instead of selling a used car to Treadway, Gateway sold a new car to Smith.

Treadway filed suit against Gateway, alleging that it had violated the ECOA by not notifying her that it had taken an adverse action against her.

You Be the Judge: Did Gateway violate the ECOA?

Question: Did Treadway ever file a loan application?

Question: Then how could she claim that she had been denied credit?

Question: Did the court rule that Gateway had discriminated?

Solutions

Expert Solution

PLEASE - - - - PLEASE KINDLY UP-VOTE. IT HELPS ME A LOT. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE.


Related Solutions

Case: Treadway v. Gateway Chevrolet Oldsmobile Inc. Facts: Gateway Chevrolet Oldsmobile (GCO), a car dealership, sent...
Case: Treadway v. Gateway Chevrolet Oldsmobile Inc. Facts: Gateway Chevrolet Oldsmobile (GCO), a car dealership, sent an unsolicited letter to Tonja Treadway notifying her that she was “pre-approved” for the financing to purchase a car. Gateway did not provide financing itself; instead, it arranged loans through banks or finance companies. Treadway called the dealer to say that she was interested in purchasing a used car. With her permission, Gateway obtained her credit report. Based on this report, the dealer determined...
Case Brief of DirecTV v. NLRB 1. what facts are important to the case? 2. What...
Case Brief of DirecTV v. NLRB 1. what facts are important to the case? 2. What issues is this case about? 3. What was the court's decision? 4. The reasoning behind the court's decision?
Case: Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Camp[1] Facts: On October 12, Shawn Sheth and James Camp...
Case: Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Camp[1] Facts: On October 12, Shawn Sheth and James Camp agreed that Camp would provide services to Sheth by October 15. In payment, Sheth gave Camp a check for $1,300 that was postdated October 15. On October 13, Camp sold the check to Buckeye Check Cashing for $1,261.31. On October 14, fearing that Camp would violate the contract, Sheth stopped payment on the check. Also, on October 14, Buckeye deposited the check with its...
Bostock v. Clayton County case 2020: FACTS ? ISSUES ? ANSWER ? REASONING ?
Bostock v. Clayton County case 2020: FACTS ? ISSUES ? ANSWER ? REASONING ?
On January 1, 2019, Dealership Inc. sold and delivered a car to a customer for $30,000...
On January 1, 2019, Dealership Inc. sold and delivered a car to a customer for $30,000 cash. The car included a basic standard one-year (assurance) warranty for major parts and a five-year extended warranty (commences January 1, 2019) for all parts and labour. Two performance obligations are identified: car and standard warranty; and the extended warranty. The car could have been sold separately for $28,000 and the extended warranty for $4,000. The estimated cost for the standard warranty is $350...
Please brief the case for Scott v. Sandford. A Partial brief meaning focusing on the facts...
Please brief the case for Scott v. Sandford. A Partial brief meaning focusing on the facts and issues of the case
Brief case of New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira,
Brief case of New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira,
mc clune v neitzel neb. 754 (1990) facts of the case relevant law( or cases similar)...
mc clune v neitzel neb. 754 (1990) facts of the case relevant law( or cases similar) holding of court
Brief the case Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. V. Wood in the order: 1. citation 2. facts...
Brief the case Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. V. Wood in the order: 1. citation 2. facts 3. issue 4. decision ( includes reason for the rule of law and analysis for the result of the preceding case)
Green v. County school board—brief this case into four sections Facts Issues (the legal question the...
Green v. County school board—brief this case into four sections Facts Issues (the legal question the court took on) Holding Court reasoning
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT