The affiliation between MSIII, Ocwen, & Selene was not recorded with the loan, which is a violation of RESPA's HUD Affiliated Business Arrangement Disclosure Statement. 12 USC § 2602(7). If a person directly or indirectly refers business to that provider or affirmatively influences the selection of the affiliated business, they must disclose the nature of the relationship they have with the provider of the settlement services and of an estimated range of charges made by the provider. The disclosure must be made no later than the time the referral is made. 24 CFR § 3500.15(b)(1).
11. The Plaintiffs received no notice of the alleged sale of our loan from MSIII to Allquest. Other than the Allonge that is not affixed to the loan docs, there is
Equuscorp launched proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria against each of the respondents. Equuscorp’s claims were for “loss and damage” for breach of the loan agreements and for money had and received. The trial judge dismissed Equuscorp’s contractual claim in all eight cases and upheld the restitution claim in two cases. The respondents appealed this decision in the Supreme Court of Victoria’s Court of Appeal. In this appeal, the majority held that the trial judge erred and that Equuscorp was not entitled to restitution. Equuscorp appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to the three respondents. Its grounds for appeal included that the Court of Appeal erred in deciding: a) that Equuscorp was not entitled to restitution for the unenforceable loan agreements; b) that it was not unjust for the respondents to keep the amounts pursuant to the unenforceable loan agreements; and c) that restitution was not assigned as a right or remedy to recover the amounts under the unenforceable loan agreements.
Debbie owed Carlos $50,000 on a contract for the purchase of 200 air conditioners on credit, the terms of payment stating “Payment due 60 days after delivery.” Delivery was made on January 2. On March 10, Debbie met Carlos and told him, “I’m sorry I missed out on paying you what I owe you. Collections have been slow. If you give me until May 1, I’ll pay you what I owe plus interest at 9%.” Carlos said, “O.K. I’ll give you until May 1.” On March 15, Carlos changed his mind and sued Debbie for $50,000. Debbie contends that the debt is not due until May
California and Hawaiian Sugar Company contracted Sun ship to build a vessel. The contract gave Sun Ship almost two years to complete the work. The contract contained a liquidated clause that required Sun Ship to pay 17,000 dollars per day for ever day that the ship was not delivered after the agreed date. The ship was delivered after eight and a half months after the agreed delivery date. During the period, the ship had not been delivered, California and Hawaiian Sugar Company suffered actual losses of 368,000 dollar. The defendant refused to pay the liquidated damages and the plaintiff brought an action to recover the damages.
In August 2008, NFM sent the McCaulleys another invoice of $14,550 and told them that NFM did not have to honor the agreement, because of the pricing error and a provision concerning this error printed in the back of the invoices the McCaulleys received. NFM eventually refunded the deposit to the McCaulleys’ credit card without informing them. On September 26th 2008, the McCaulleys filed a complained to seek declaratory relief and damages on the basis that NFM breached the sales contract. On October 24th 2008, NFM answered that the pricing error clause on the invoices invalidated the complaint and the fact that Richard and Michelle took no action to retender the deposit led to the rescission of the contract. In April 27th 2012, the district court ruled in favor of NFM. The McCaulleys appealed, alleging that there were several errors in the trial court’s judgment regarding the terms and conditions in the parties’ sales contract.
Ms. Read reported the interest income from the installment promissory note in her 1988, 1989, and 1990 tax returns. However, she did not report any principal income from the stock transfer transaction in her tax return. Mr. Read also
3. Assuming that she was, a question whether the respective defendants, any, all, or who of them, were proper subjects for the injunction prayed, as holding the bonds without sufficient title, and herein -- and more particularly as respected Hardenberg, and Birch, Murray & Co. -- a question of negotiable paper, and the extent to which holders, asserting themselves holders bona fide and for value, of paper payable "to bearer," held it discharged of precedent equities.
In this case perhaps McCoy would wish to be a limited partner and be removed from the day to day operations. An option he could choose could be to be a Limited Liability Corporation, may come with additional costs, work and headaches, but even so as we with any business it has its advantages, which includes the flexibility of who manages the business, can be easier to raise capital and add or transfer ownership interests. Owners are no longer liable for business debts, but the
Palgo Holdings Pty Ltd carried on a business of making small secured loans. Each borrower would sign a two-part document. The first part of the document, titled “Secured Loan Agreement”, recorded the amount of the loan and the date on which the principal and interest was due. The second part of the document, titled “Bill of Sale/Goods Mortgage”, was made as a deed between the borrower as mortgagor and the lender as mortgagee. It also recorded that the terms of the bill of sale were set out in the schedule of terms attached.
Had Mr Virgo disclosed all information to the Amadio’s, especially when Mr Amadio made the statement which suggested he was not properly informed of the terms of the mortgage, and the Amadio’s understood everything, they would not have been able to take to court the Commercial Bank of Australia on the grounds of unconscionable conduct. The fact that their ‘special disadvantage’ was exploited gave passage for them to receive equitable relief for unconscionable
Given the situation, as manager of the office, Sara must talk to Nell and tell her that she can not allow her to stay doing her work because she is not fit to comply with them due to her drunken state. However, you must ask her to leave the office and return the next day when she is already sober to talk about the particular situation.
Maria had spoken with Eva over the phone concerning the correct total amount of $60,000 for rendering decorating services provided by Eva. Maria had sent a letter of the telephone conversation stating that Eva agreed to take $60,000 in full satisfaction obligation under the contract. Although Eva, changed her mind when depositing the check in the bank, she legally entered a mutual agreement over the telephone where it resulted in a unliquidated debt, payment is lower than actual.
This case study examines various real estate contracts – the Real Estate Purchase Contract (REPC) and two addendums labeled Addendum No. 1 and Addendum No. 2 – pertaining to the sale of 1234 Cul-de-sac Lane in Orem, Utah. The buyers in this contract are 17 year old Jon D’Man and 21 year old Marsha Mello; the seller is Boren T. Deal. The first contract created was Jon and Marsha’s offer to purchase Boren’s house. This contract was created using the RESC form, which was likely provided by their real estate agent as it is the required form for real estate transactions according to Utah state law. The seller originally listed the house on a Multiple Listing Service (MLS); Jon and Marsha agreed that the asking price was too high for the neighborhood (although we are not given the actual listing price), and agreed to offer two-hundred and seven-thousand dollars ($207,000) and an Earnest Money Deposit of five-thousand dollars ($5,000). Additionally, the buyers requested that the seller pay 3% which includes the title insurance and property taxes. After the REPC form was drafted, the two addendums were created. Addendum No. 1 is from the seller back to the buyer, and Addendum No. 2 is the buyer’s counteroffer to the seller.
This is a complex case, involving multiple parties and several variables that need to be examined thoroughly. The parties mentioned include Knarles operator of the facility maintenance company, his son Barkley, their employee, a licensed plumber, and Mr. Chetum. Although in the end Chetum is suing the facilities maintenance firm for a breach of contract, all factors must be examined to determine proper fault.
In the pleadings, a complaint needs to be filed by the plaintiff with the court and the defendants. In this case, the complaint was filed for wrongful death and injunctions. The complaint was given to both companies on May 14, 1982. Then, the defendants must answer within twenty-four hours of receiving the complaint to the summon or risk losing the case by default of the court. W.R. Grace denied the allegations against them. Also, their other defenses was that the complaint didn’t state any cause of action, in the complaint the company named was misnamed, the company followed the due of care at all times and acted in “good faith,” and the claims against them are barred. The next step is the methods of discovery.
In cases between Adams v Lindsell. The defendant, Lindsell wrote the to the plaintiff, that state Lindsell offering to sell them some quantity of wool on 2nd September. Lindsell requested that the plaintiff, Adam to reply in course of post. However the letter was contained the offer that should be sent to Adam was wrongly addressed lindsell should sent the letter of the offer to Bromsgrove Leceister but it’s sent by the mistakes to Bromsgrove Worcestershire. Adam didn’t received any letter of the offer from Lindsell until 5th September. As the result of this delay, the letter of an offer does not received by Adam until 9th September, and to receive it. Because of the mistakes, this was two day later, Lindsell would have expected to received it. On 8th September Lindsell had sell he wool and gived the offer to the third party. Adam have brought of suits for the losses their sustained by not receiving the fleeches.