Fraud and misrepresentation

[jb136]

Jurisdiction

Pennsylvania

A friend of mine got in a contract agreement with a car dealership. The dealership has an undisclosed principal who is the actual lender, and the one who actually held the lien on the property.
The car dealership is the only one on the agreement with my friend. The car dealership had the car repossessed my friend had zero knowledge of the actual lender, and was ignorant to the fact and didn't have an equal opportunity to discover this. We were told by one representative they (car dealership )are the lenders and are owed payments. When I got on the phone and spoke with a representative, he admitted it was the other company who was the true lender, and go to court to handle the contract issue. Im pretty sure a legally binding contract is

• An offer.
• Acceptance,
• Consideration.
• Mutuality of obligation.
• Competency and capacity

 

[adjusterjack]

There's no way to comment on the situation without reading the entire purchase/loan contract.

If your friend's car got repossessed because he missed payments then your legal theories may be irrelevant.

It's possible that the dealer is acting as the lender's agent for the collection of payments and the repossession of the car. Your friend wouldn't necessarily have to know the identity of the lender because it would be a separate agreement between the lender and the dealer.

If you want to upload a copy of the purchase/loan agreement we'll see what we can see. Be sure to redact any identifying information.

 

[Tax Counsel]

You didn't ask a question, so I don't know what it is you — or more accurately your friend — are looking for here. If the lender was an undisclosed principal in the deal then the dealership was its agent. In general when an agent makes a contract for his/her principal and the principal is known to the other party then only the principal is liable to the other party in the contract. But if the principal is not disclosed then the agent generally is also liable to the other party. In other case, however, the other party remains liable for his end of the deal.

What this means is that if your friend breached the loan contract then the lender is entitled to repossess the car (assuming it properly got a security interest in the car) because, whether the lender was disclosed or not, your friend is still liable for his end of the deal. And the lender may certainly have its agent do the repossession. In short, your friend doesn't have an out here just because the lender was undisclosed.

 

[jb136]

There's no way to comment on the situation without reading the entire purchase/loan contract.

If your friend's car got repossessed because he missed payments then your legal theories may be irrelevant.

It's possible that the dealer is acting as the lender's agent for the collection of payments and the repossession of the car. Your friend wouldn't necessarily have to know the identity of the lender because it would be a separate agreement between the lender and the dealer.

If you want to upload a copy of the purchase/loan agreement we'll see what we can see. Be sure to redact any identifying information.

I don't have it right in front of me it's about 4 pages so what you are admitting is the contract doesn't have to be legally binding? because the consideration to know who your doing business with is not there, The agreement actually being the loan by your signature being securitized as collateral per the UCC. When you sign for a car note it comes under UCC Article 3. After securitization, it comes under Article 8. Under US law securitization is illegal because it is fraudulent. Instruments such as loans, credit cards and receivables, are securitized so my friend funded the loan are you shittin me?? It's promissory notes and reverse accounting it's no theories. I happen to read codes and understand what's really going on my friend doesn't, so was not competent

 

[flyingron]

Do you have fringe on your flag? Article 8 has no applicability here.

Taxing Matters gave you the proper answer. And to note, that unless the contract precludes assignment, it can be transferred to another entity without notice.

 

[jb136]

Do you have fringe on your flag? Article 8 has no applicability here.

Taxing Matters gave you the proper answer. And to note, that unless the contract precludes assignment, it can be transferred to another entity without notice.

UCC article 8 what the hell are you talking about?? I see y'all are gonna dance around this topic y'all the same as the bankers robbing the citizens. No he's not right I'm not the average incompetent legal fiction

 

[Tax Counsel]

because the consideration to know who your doing business with is not there,

Contract law does not require that you have to know who the undisclosed principal is. You know who the agent is, and the law solves the problem of not knowing the undisclosed principal by making the agent whom you do know liable for the principal's end of the deal along with the principal. So you get to rely on the party to the deal that you do know. For your friend, it's not any different than if the dealer was the actual lender instead of being the agent for someone else. This kind of situation happens frequently, and those contracts are indeed enforceable notwithstanding that an undisclosed principal was involved.

Under US law securitization is illegal because it is fraudulent.

I don't know where you got that idea, but it's not correct.

Instruments such as loans, credit cards and receivables, are securitized so my friend funded the loan are you shittin me?? It's promissory notes and reverse accounting it's no theories. I happen to read codes and understand what's really going on my friend doesn't, so was not competent

My bet is that you are using arguments you read off some web site rather than actually having studied the statutes and case law. Some web sites out there promote very bad and misleading theories of the law. You have to be careful to find reliable sources of information on the internet. Car loans where the car is pledged as security for the loan are enforced every day in this country and courts do not hold that these arrangements are invalid as being fraudulent. Your friend bought a car not with cash he had, but with the cash the lender provided and he signed a contract in which he agreed to repay the lender that cash, plus interest, and to put up the car he just bought as security for that loan so if he misses payments the lender can take the car and sell it to repay the loan. Nothing about that arrangement is fraudulent, and if your friend didn't understand how this works, that's on your friend. Most car buyers understand quite well what the basic deal is that they are getting into.

If your friend wants legal advice, recommend to him/her to consult an attorney.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Do you have fringe on your flag? Article 8 has no applicability here.

The OP was referring to Article 8 of the UCC, which covers investment securities. There is no Article 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Zigner]

The OP considered him/her self to be some flavor of sovereign citizen. There's no amount of convincing that will help the OP because the OP is operating under delusions.

 

[adjusterjack]

I think we're done here.

Thread closed.