Email from cash supply...
Date: Wed, 04/05/2006 - 14:55
Quote:
Recently, you advised that you believe you are not obligated to pay your debt because, in your opinion, the loan agreement is not consistent with the laws of your state. According to the contract you esigned. This debt is governed by New Mexico law, not the laws of the borrower's home state. The loan agreement and the acknowledgement page each contained explicit choice-of-law clauses in which the borrower agreed to be bound by New Mexico law. Even if this clause were not present, though , the key elements of this transaction -acceptance of the application , making of the loan decision, disbursement of the loan proceeds and repayments of the debt-all occurred in New Mexico. Under the Restatement of Conflicts of Law and numerous federal and state court decisions, New Mexico law applies regardless of a borrower's home state. In short you choose to go out of your home state to get this loan. You chose to take advantage of credit offered by a New Mexico lender operating in New Mexico. No one forced you to go outside your home state-and therefore outside its laws- to seek credit. Now you wish to evade your responsibilities by hiding behind those laws. Our institution rejects your interpretation of the law and demands payment of the monies owed to it. Thank You for your attention to this matter. T. Johnson Pre-litigation and Fraud |
Throw this at them and tell them to bite ya :lol: Quote:You
Throw this at them and tell them to bite ya :lol:
Quote:
Your claim that the contract that I signed is only governed by the law of the state in which your company resides is unsubstantiated. There is specific Federal case law that refutes your claim. Your company solicited, accepted and transacted business with a citizen of the State of (your state), thus you are subject to the laws of this state including the (applicable term in question which would be usury, interest rate cap, or licensing requirements) laws. ???Dot Com repeatedly and consciously chose to process Pennsylvania residents' applications and to assign them passwords. Dot Com knew that the result of these contracts would be the transmission of electronic messages into Pennsylvania. The transmission of these files was entirely within its control. Dot Com cannot maintain that these contracts are "fortuitous" or "coincidental" within the meaning of World-Wide Volkswagen. When a defendant makes a conscious choice to conduct business with the residents of a forum state, "it has clear notice that it is subject to suit there." World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 297, 100 S. Ct. at 567 Dot Com was under no obligation to sell its services to Pennsylvania residents. It freely chose to do so, presumably in order to profit from those transactions. If a corporation determines that the risk of being subject to personal jurisdiction in a particular forum is too great, it can choose to sever its connection to the state. Id. If Dot Com had not wanted to be amenable to jurisdiction in Pennsylvania, the solution would have been simple--it could have chosen not to sell its services to Pennsylvania residents.??? (W. D. Pa. 1997) |
I sent them the entire statue of Florida on their usury laws! LO
I sent them the entire statue of Florida on their usury laws! LOL
That's good, but they are still going to try to hold you to the
That's good, but they are still going to try to hold you to the governing law b.s., as if you care about New Mexico's messsed up laws.
The above ruling is a FEDERAL ruling, dealing specifically with internet issues. It is a precedent. Send that to them.