Final Rules Amending TILA and Consumer Leasing Act

The Federal Reserve just adopted final rules pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). The rules increase the protections of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) by extending TILA protections from transactions under $25,000 to those under $50,000. The $50,000 threshold will now fluctuate with the consumer price index, rather than remain static.

The rules also increase disclosure required by lessors of large consumer goods, such as cars, from $25,000 to $50,000. The required disclosures for leases more than four months include information to consumers about the cost of leases.

These rules are effective July 21, 2011.

- JSM

Does Unconscionability Theory Lead to Greater Economic Problems?

Today is the second day of the International Contracts Conference hosted this year by Stetson University College of Law. Professor Xi George Zhou of the University of Sheffield presented his paper, An Economic Perspective on Legal Remedies for Unconscionable Contracts, where he argues that there are disincentives to trade created by unconscionability doctrine, precaution problems and potential abuse of rights. His paper asks whether a higher deterrence model leads to greater economic problems. He proposes that creating an effective remedy for unconscionable behavior may require a legal remedy that is lower, as a high sanction may result in less economic transactions due to precautions employed by traders. Thus, it is impossible to eliminate bad behavior through deterrence alone. In order to use any legal mechanism we need to focus on the effectiveness of the tactic. There are risks to all deterrence models.

Professor Zhou also presented a call for papers for the Society of Legal Scholars Conference September 5-8. This year's topic is Law in Politics, Politics in Law. All papers on any aspect of contract, commercial and consumer law are welcome, whether on topic or not. Paper proposals are due by March 4, 2011 to Professor Zhou at qi.zhou@sheffield.ac.uk.

-jsm

Card Networks Attempting to Block Debit Card Merchant Fee Regulation

In a surprise late addition to the financial reform legislation, Congress required the Federal Reserve to regulate the fees that merchants pay to accept debit cards. The statute requires the regulated rate to include only per transaction costs and certain anti-fraud expenses. In December, the FED put out for comment a proposed rate of 12 cents per transaction, nearly 75% below the current average fee of 44 cents. Current rates are based on a percentage of the sale price.

Merchants were pleased with the FED's proposal. Banks were not, claiming that a fee that low would force them to lose money on debit card programs unless they charged their own customers. (Imagine that.) One bank has filed a constitutional challenge to the legislation, arguing that it constitutes a taking of bank property without just compensation and violates the equal protection clause because only the largest banks will have their rates regulated. The period for comment ends next Tuesday, February 22, and the FED must promulgate a final rate by April 21.

In recent testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, FED Governor Sarah Bloom Raskin explained that board members were "reserving judgment on the final rule" until they can consider all of the comments. Some lawmakers have expressed concern the FED has not adequately considered the cost of fraud prevention. Visa has ramped up a vigorous lobbying campaign, urging Congress to enact new legislation delaying the implementation of the regulation. Observers believe that changes at this point are unlikely. Representative Barney Frank, however, told the press that while he would not support the delay that Visa has requested, he would support instructing the FED to include more factors in the fee calculation.

2011 Sales Survey

I just put the draft of the Sales Survey up on SSRN. It will appear in the Business Lawyer in August or September, but there are some really great cases this year. Yes, some really good examination ideas as well!

- JSM

Suffolk Law Visiting Position

Suffolk University School of Law is seeking potential visiting professors (assistant, associate, or full) to teach a 6 credit-hour Contracts course beginning Fall 2011. Candidates should have significant teaching experience and strong student evaluations. Suffolk University is conveniently located in the center of Boston. If anyone is interested, please feel free to contact Elizabeth Trujillo, Associate Professor, Suffolk University Law School, 120 Tremont Street, Boston, MA 02108-4977 Tel: 617-305-1672; etrujillo@suffolk.edu.

- JSM

Specific Performance, Parol Evidence and the Naughty Monkey

Here is a great case about specific performance, parol evidence and a yacht named the "Naughty Monkey!"

U.C.C. section 2-716 provides a more liberal attitude toward the remedy of specific performance of contracts for the sale of goods than the common law traditionally does, and a concomitant broader view about when the goods are unique. In Naughty Monkey LLC v. Marinemax Northeast LLC, No. C.A. 5095-VCN, 2010 WL 5545409 (Del. Ch. Dec. 23, 2010, the court considered a request for specific performance based on language in a yacht sales contract providing “TRADE VALUE GUARANTEED TO 15% LOSS WITHIN 18 MONTHS (PER ANDREW SCHNEIDER) SUBJ. TO MARINE SURVEY AND FINANCING” (the “Buyer Protection Clause”). Michael Stock (“Stock”) contacted Marinemax Northeast LLC (“Marinemax”) about the purchase of a new boat after seeing their boats at the National Harbor Boat Show. Eventually, Stock purchased a 62-foot Azimut yacht, which he named the Naughty Monkey, for $1,825,000 through an entity he named the Naughty Monkey LLC (“Naughty Monkey”). Concerned about losses on a yacht of this price, Stock negotiated some down side price protection in the form of the Buyer Protection Clause. About a year later, Stock decided that he did not want the Naughty Monkey and proposed that he trade the boat back to Marinemax for a boat for $2900 and Marinemax would make a cash payment to him for $1,633.350, the difference under the contract. Marinemax refused this request, taking the position that the agreement only allowed Stock to trade the Naughty Monkey in toward the purchase of a more expensive yacht. Stock brought suit for specific performance on the contract, as well as damages related to financing, insurance and maintenance costs for the yacht.

The first issue the court considered was the meaning of the Buyer Protection Clause. Without any reference to section 2-202, the court instead initially referenced certain traditional notions of interpretation, namely to “effect to the clear terms of agreements, regardless of the intent of the parties at the time of contract formation” and to use the “customary, ordinary and accepted meaning of the language.” Nevertheless, the court considered extrinsic evidence to select a meaning of the Buyer Protection Clause that neither party argued: that Stock could trade in the Naughty Monkey to Marinemax, but not for cash, toward the purchase of any merchandise, not only boats of higher value.

Turning to the issue of specific performance under section 2-716, the court ruled that a “remedy at law would do complete injustice in this case.” The court observed that having Marinemax pay monetary damages would inevitably deprive it of the benefit of the bargain which would permit it to sell Stock another yacht at retail cost which it only paid wholesale. Similarly, if the court were to give Stock monetary relief then he would get a liquid asset, which is more than he would have received under the agreement. Accordingly, specific performance, was the appropriate remedy.

- JSM

Good Faith in the Termination of Sales Contracts

Courts in several cases addressed claims for breach of contract based on a party’s failure to act in good faith. So, what does good faith require under UCC section 1-304? In the following case, the court did a nice job of tying an arbitration panel's implication of a reasonability requirement in the application of a termination provision in an agreement with the obligation of good faith.

In Burton Corp. v. Shanghai Viquest Precesion Industries Co., Ltd., No. 10 Civ. 3163(DLC), 2010 WL 3024319 (S.D.N.Y. August 03, 2010), the court affirmed an arbitration award in favor of Shanghai Viquest Precesion Industries Co., Ltd. (“Viquest”) to recover for unpaid shipments of snowboard bindings made to Burton Corp. (“Burton”) for use in its snowboards and for wrongful termination of the sales agreement. The agreement permitted Burton to terminate if Viquest’s “financial position pose[d] a risk to Burton's business.” Additionally, the agreement provided that Viquest would, upon request, return Burton’s molds upon termination for any reason. During the term of the agreement and while Burton owed Viquest $1.8 million for unpaid shipments, Burton terminated, claiming financial concerns, and requested return of the molds.

When Viquest did not return the molds, Burton had to replace the molds and filed an arbitration to recover its cost of replacement as the agreement provided for arbitration of disputes. Viquest counterclaimed for its lost profits due to the early termination. The arbitration panel concluded that Burton could only terminate under the financial clause if it reasonably believed that Viquest’s financial position threatened its prospects, which Burton did not prove. Accordingly, the arbitration panel awarded Viquest its lost profits for the early termination and denied Burton’s request for the cost of replacing the molds as Burton was not itself in conformance with the agreement and owed Viquest substantial sums.

The District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Burton’s request to vacate the arbitration award against it, confirming the award in full. The court treated the reasonableness as derived from the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, citing to the U.C.C. section 1-304 obligation of good faith contained in every contract. The court observed that the obligation of good faith required Burton to have a reasonable basis for terminating the agreement. Moreover, Burton’s failure to pay Viquest for outstanding invoices put pressure on Viquest’s financial condition.


- JSM

The Predominant Purpose Test Still Predominates Mixed Goods/Services Transactions

Here is another little bit from the upcoming Sales Survey in the business lawyer. Here are a couple of nice examples of recent mixed-goods/services transactions under UCC section 2-102. Use of the predominates test has been pretty consistent in cases I've seen of late.

In Blesi-Evans Co. v. Western Mechanical Service, Inc., 72 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 115 (W.D.S.D. 2010), the court examined whether a contract for a boiler purchased for installation at the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology (SDSM&T) campus was one for the sale of goods. Western Mechanical Service (Western) had a contract for the replacement of the SDSM&T boiler that required it to pay $500 per day in liquidated damages if the installation was not substantially complete by October 13, 2006. Western ordered the boiler from Blesi-Evans (Blesi), which agreed to also provide start up and training for the boiler. When Blesi failed to deliver the boiler in time to meet the SDSM&T contract, Western installed a temporary boiler. Blesi brought suit for its contract price on the boiler and Western claimed the expense of the temporary boiler. The court correctly ruled that Article 2 governs transactions where goods and services are bundled if the “predominant purpose” of the contract was for the sale of goods and the services are merely incidental. The court noted that Blesi was to provide a boiler, something clearly movable. The court noted that some of the purchase documents failed even to mention the related services and the dispute that actually arose was one related to the provision of the good in a timely manner, not the services.

Similarly in Connie Beale, Inc. v. Plimpton, 2010 WL 398903 (Conn.Super. January 13, 2010), the court considered a claim for breach of an interior decorating contract. Applying the predominant purpose test, the court found a contract for interior design is predominantly one for services, even though the designer would present furniture, upholstery, window coverings, fabrics and flooring to the buyer for consideration. The court noted that “[a] transaction that requires the incorporation of materials does not make it an agreement for a sale . . . .” Moreover, the parties did not label the contract a sale of furnishings, even though decorating services would surely include some goods.

- jsm

2-204 Still Requires Contract Basics

It is the time of the year when I am working on the ABA's Sales Survey of Article 2 cases from 2010. So, I'll pass along a few nice ones here. Perhaps some of these will make good examination questions or just good basics. And the lesson of today's 2010 case, yes, an Article 2 contract still requires a basic agreement at least some definite terms.

While much litigation and scholarly attention surrounding contract formation under Article 2 centers on section 2 207, the decision in Teter v. Glass Onion, Inc., 723 F.Supp.2d 1138 (W.D. Mo. 2010) turned on the application of section 2 204. Gary Teter (“Teter”), an artist who paints historic scenes, met with the owners of the Glass Onion, Inc. (“Glass Onion”), the purchaser of a gallery with which Teter had done business in the past to discuss the continuation of the business relationship with the gallery under Glass Onion’s ownership. Thereafter, the parties had several sales transactions for original paintings by Teter where Glass Onion purchased the paintings and posted an image on its website. After some period of time, however, Teter’s agent advised that to continue the relationship, Glass Onion would need to execute a Dealership Agreement.

When Glass Onion did not become an authorized dealer, Teter’s agent requested that Glass Onion remove images from its web site and advertising. When Glass Onion did not remove the images, Teter brought suit against Glass Onion on various claims related to Glass Onion’s use of Teter’s works in its advertising. Glass Onion brought counterclaims on the grounds that Teter breached a contract to sell art to Glass Onion and provide it a geographic exclusivity. The court granted Teter’s motion for summary judgment on Glass Onion’s counterclaims. The court noted that while section 2-204 permits the making of a contract based on conduct of the parties, the basic elements of an agreement must still be present. While the eight purchases of artwork constituted contracts, the alleged ongoing agreement to sell artwork to Glass Onion for resale on the same terms as the predecessor owner of the gallery was too indefinite and lacked consideration to constitute a contract under section 2-204. Accordingly, Teter was under no firm obligation with Glass Onion or the previous gallery owner to continue selling artwork and could stop selling or refuse to sell paintings to the gallery without recourse.

For similar lines of reasoning, see Key Items, Inc. v. Ultima Diamonds, Inc., No. 09 Civ. 3729(HBP), 2010 WL 3291582 (S.D.N.Y. August 17, 2010) (companies related to buyer were not responsible on unpaid contract to which they were not a party); Harman Invs., Ltd. v. Shah Safari, Inc., No. C10-0216RSL, 2010 WL 3522517 (W.D. Wash. September 07, 2010)(financier was not party to contract for purchase of goods and not liable for non-payment thereon).

- JSM

St. Thomas University Looking for Business Associations Faculty

A plug for my school. We are still looking for a new or lateral Business Associations faculty for next year. With Florida now also testing UCC Articles 3 and 9, I suspect there is more room for commercial law as well as traditional corporate subjects. Here is the ad from Fall. We've filled some slots, but are still looking in the business arena. If you are looking or would like to recommend anyone, please contact me directly at jmartin@stu.edu or hiring chair Tamara Lawson, below.

ST. THOMAS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW in Miami, Florida, invites applications from experienced and entry-level candidates for tenure-track positions beginning in the 2011/2012 academic year. The Law School especially seeks candidates in the areas of Business Associations, Wills and Trusts, Constitutional Law, Securities Regulations, Property and Civil Procedure. Applicants must possess a distinguished academic record, a dedication to excellence in teaching, and a demonstrated commitment to scholarship. Consistent with the Law School’s tradition of diversity, members of minority groups and women are especially encouraged to apply. Applicants should send a letter of application and a resume. CONTACT: Professor Tamara Lawson, Chair of the Faculty Recruitment Committee, St. Thomas University School of Law, 16401 NW 37th Avenue, Miami Gardens, Florida 33054. E-MAIL: tlawson@stu.edu. FAX: (305) 623-2390.

— JSM

Opportunity for Publishing for Commercial Law Profs

For those who didn't attend the Annual Conference in San Francisco or visit the CALI booth or simply haven't heard . . . CALI is also sponsoring fellowships in a program called ELangdell whereby professors submit proposals to CALI for law school text books and supplements and, if accepted, CALI publish the work as a digital e-book in multiple formats. CALI pays $500 per chapter to authors, but gives the books away for free to students. This is a great resource for students and professors in a time where book costs are very high and resources slim. CALI is hoping to both have a nice library of free books itself and, perhaps, to put market pressure on the main publishers regarding their pricing of e-books. Several books are in progress and the beta versions of Doug McFarland’s Civil Procedure text (6th edition) and a chapter on Ethics for Tax lawyers are already available. Other proposed texts are in process.



If you are interested in putting in a proposal for something in the Commercial Law area, contact Deb Quentel at CALI at dquentell@cali.org. The next round of proposals are due by February 2, 2011.

- JSM

Arbitration by Door Posting?

Dan Barnhizer (Michigan State) posted yesterday on the Contracts list serve this photo sent to him from a student that saw it at a Whataburger. The text reads:

"Arbitration Notice"
"By entering these premises, you hereby agree to resolve any and all disputes or claims of any kind whatsoever, which arise from the products, services or premises, by way of binding arbitration, not litigation. No suit or action may be filed in any state or federal court. Any arbitration shall be governed by the FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT, and administered by the American Mediation Association.
"Arbitration Notice"

Naturally, this raises many questions about consent to abitration, class action arbitrations and rules that might even apply to any such disputes. And, of course, Barnhizer asked "what they do for drive-through customers?"

- JSM

AALS Section on Financial Institutions and Consumer Financial Services

The section program at the Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools in San Francisco on January 7 this year focused on the "post-crisis" landscape. The Call for Papers panel featured papers by William Birdthistle, Jim Hawkins, Adam Levitin, Alan White and Sarah Woo.

One of my favorites on this panel was James Hawkins' (University of Houston) paper on Regulating the Fringe: Reexamining the Link Between Fringe Banking and Financial Distress forthcoming in the Indiana Law Review. Basically Jim argues that products like payday loans, pawn loans, and rent-to-own leases— might not cause as much financial distress to consumers because of the finality involved in these transactions and the amount. As such, perhaps we might reconsider whether regulators should lump these types of transactions with others. At the heart of this is what constitutes financial distress. While I am not a fan of the fringe banking products, Jim's argument that they might require differing treatment in terms of regulation is worth serious consideration. For my part, I part with him in some of the ideas regarding monetary valuation. I remain unconvinced that one person's financial distress is the same as another's due to relative economic means as a whole. For instance, a person of very limited means may experience serious financial distress when their $750 auto is repossessed and they cannot get to work, then loose their employment, etc. While the event of losing the car may have a finality in and of itself that does not continue to plague the consumer, even smaller dollar transactions can have great impact on the lives of many consumers. That aside, the finality of the transaction is worth further thought when considering regulation of fringe banking products, as is the differing impact of the size of these transactions.

- JSM

6th Annual International Conference on Contracts

6th Annual International Conference on Contracts. Stetson University College of Law and Texas Wesleyan School of Law are co-sponsoring the 6th Annual International Conference on Contracts, February 18–19, 2011, at Stetson’s beautiful campus in Gulfport, Florida. Similar to prior contracts conferences held at UNLV, McGeorge, South Texas, Texas Wesleyan, and Gloucester, England, this conference is designed to afford scholars and teach­ers at all experience levels an opportunity to present and discuss recently published papers, forthcoming papers, works in progress, and pedagogical innovations, and to network with colleagues from the United States and around the globe. Stewart Macaulay, Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin, is the keynote speaker. A few places remain available for panelists and moderators at the conference. Proposals for presentations will be considered on a rolling basis until spaces are filled, but no later than January 15. For more information or to register online, visit www.law.stetson.edu/conferences/contracts. Contact person: Associate Dean James Fox fox@law.stetson.edu.

- JSM

What are they teaching kids about finance and budgeting?

My eighth grade daughter just participated in a program on finances and budgeting sponsored by Junior Achievement. A Junior Achievement teen personal finance survey reports that more than half of teens are not confident that they will make sound choices in terms of credit. Moreover, nearly all teens think they should have a credit card by age 21. The survey observes:

“Teens are admitting that they don’t have knowledge of some of the basic money management skills around investing, budgeting and using credit. Despite the alarming numbers, teens overwhelmingly have high hopes for future financial stability. The poll shows we need to do a better job of ensuring our youth are financially literate. JA offers a broad range of age-appropriate financial literacy curricula, from kindergarten through grade 12.”

So, all of this sounds a little dire. Making the work of Junior Achievement even more important, of course. And perhaps a few basic tips from Suzi Orman are in order? Not surprisingly, we talk to our daughter about making wise choices and living within her means. This would include everything from buying items on sale to purchasing used items on sites like Craigslist. We also talk to her about being a good citizen in terms of the environment as well, including walking and biking when possible. That is, not everyone (particularly college students) needs a car.

I was ready to embrace the Junior Achievement concern to educate teenagers, until my daughter started asking me questions about the workbooks her teacher assigned. She understood her profile to be a college student who has a job earning about $30,000 per year. A little unrealistic for a college student, but all right. The program has the student fill out budgets. This is where my daughter had many questions and I simply could not support the choices the program expected. For instance:

1. The workbook not only mandated that she purchase a car (whether she could afford it or not), but also required her to take out a five year loan on the car. In the summer Oprah magazine, Suzi Orman yet again blasted this practice advising against car loans more than 36 months or less (7 Deals You Should Never Make). Basically, perhaps one needs to shop for a less expensive car.


2. The workbook also mandated that she replace $650 of household furnishings and that she must put it on a credit card and pay for it that way. Apparently, no option to save up and buy in cash or to purchase something used.


3. The workbook required an apartment. While the student could get roommates, there was no easy way for the student to select a less costly alternative of living in a college dormitory where utilities, rent and food are typically included.

In the end, I advised her on how to best fill out her worksheets making the least devastating decisions. She did budget for buying household furnishings with cash and saving most of the money as a down-payment for the car. While I might have been fine with this if it was designed to teach teens the devastating impact of debt, there were no comparisons to other models or advise on better decisions. I also wrote a note in the workbook for the teacher asking him not to teach our children that it is fine to enter into these types of credit and financial situations.

The result of all this? The teacher was angry with her when he saw the worksheets and gave her a D for not following the program requirements. She had waited until the last minute to finish this, so her work was not as neat as it should have been, but really? Maybe the teacher will reconsider. In the end, I'd rather her get a D on the junior achievement and an remain solvent for a lifetime. Isn't all this debt part of what lead to the financial crisis?

- JSM

Thanks from Warren Buffet!

Warren Buffet wrote a "thank you" letter to the U.S. Government which appeared in the New York Times (see Pretty Good for Government Work). It it, he reminds us that about two years ago our economy was on the brink of disaster. We looked to the government to remedy the situation and it responded with action. I agree with Buffet in this case. While the economy is not where we would like it, where business-oriented regulations are not what we might imagine, and many still lack jobs, the situation is not what it was two years back.

- JSM

Sarah Palin Criticizes Federal Reserve?

Exit elections, but the politics continue. While we ordinarily see the Federal Reserve as supposedly independent in terms of determining monetary policy, Sarah Palin did not pause to take a swipe at the announcement that the Federal Reserve will buy back government bonds (see Sarah Palin Takes Aim At Fed). In fact, she called on the Federal Reserve to "cease and desist." The rationale is that it will cause an unacceptable level of inflation that will erode our jobs and savings. The monetary policy pursued by the Fed raises more issues to me about simply whether it will work. With interest rates historically low, the Federal Reserve has few tools at its disposal to spark the economy. Let Bernanke do his job and let's hope that the Fed can impact the economy positively.

Palin's claim that prices are already rising simply doesn't bear out reality (see Palin Brawls with WSJ Over Inflated Inflation) in an economy where prices are increasing at notably slow rates. Inflation is not particularly high on the list of concerns that the Federal Reserve has currently, but jobs and the health of the economy generally is (See Dallas' Fed's Fisher: Inflation Low on List of worries).

For a discussion of the mixture of politics and the Federal Reserve, see

- JSM

So, What's in Your Wallet?

Katie Porter over at Creditslips did a piece on the cards that those who teach payment law might carry! It is an interesting read. See What's in Our Wallets?

As for me? As those who follow this blog know, I am not a fan of any cards. And, I mean that pretty much universally. From high interest rates to deceptive practices, I just don't like them. My recent dispute over an instance of credit card skimming has only increased my suspicions about card practices, even though the issuer finally capitulated and reversed the fraudulent
charge. Despite my widespread condemnation of cards, I find them necessary. Like others, I am not a fan of debt and prefer paying off balances whenever possible. Yet, having bought a home this summer, I've found a Lowe's card particularly useful! This card issued by GE Money Bank comes with many of the aspects like high interest rates that I dislike about cards. But, having a home that needs appliances and quite a bit of do-it-yourself initiative, Lowe's offers of no interest financing on many 6 and 12 month purchases is a plus. The risk is that if you don't pay off the amount in the time frame the interest is high, but for card users with discipline, the no interest deals are a nice way to spread out large home improvements over several months.

- JSM

Bernanke Speaks in Boston

Fed Chair Ben Bernanke spoke today in Boston at a conference sponsored by the Boston branch of the Federal Reserve Bank about bank policies and options in a low inflation economy (see transcript). Here is the video:

- JSM

Nice Teaching Case: Home Sold Twice

Ben Davis sent this link out to the contracts professors list serve. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39381416/. The case involves a home sold twice . . . apparently by mistake: once as a short sale and then at foreclosure days later. The new owners, thankfully, recorded their deed and bought title insurance, but it has been quite a headache for them. The lender, not surprisingly, is claiming no wrong-doing in the matter.

I am getting ready to start methods of avoidance in the next couple of weeks and will be sure to mention this one to the class.

- JSM