Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P purchased an RV from Arizona RV Centers (D1). The sales price was $97,858.98, excluding finance charges. P made a net trade-in in the amount of $9,863.49 and purchased an extended service contract for $6,995.00. P entered into a financing contract for the total transaction amount of $96,408.49. The sales contract was thereafter assigned to D. Within the first year of purchase defects began to manifest. P contends that many nonconforming and defective conditions were never repaired. P noticed Ds of their desire to rescind the sale, which request was declined, prompting initiation of the instant suit. P seeks rescission of the sale, including collateral costs as of the time of sale, finance charges, insurance premiums, maintenance costs, repair costs, as well as applicable penalties and attorney's fees with legal interest from the date of judicial demand, which P alleges exceeds $100,000.00. D argues it is not a proper party to the instant suit because it merely provided financing for the transaction at issue. An 'FTC Holder Rule,' clause in the agreement reads: ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER. D argues this clause does not entitle P to bring affirmative claims against D, but instead, merely entitles P to assert the same defenses it would have against D1 against D under circumstances where the contract of sale has been assigned to the latter. P acknowledge a split of authority on the application of the Holder Rule.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co