Whychat, Lady, Scott, Vets...SOL and Article 2 of UCC

Posted by nc (208.190.181.225) on April 09, 2003 at 13:38:28:

I thought of something that may very well be old news.

In some states, SOL on contract accounts (not cc) is longer than 4 years. Now, According to UCC Article 2, broken sales contracts have an SOL of 4 years from the date it was broken.

a) wouldnt this prevail over state sol's that are longer than 4 years (of course, only for sales contracts...auto purchases, etc)

b) what would the date of broken contract be? first 30 late? charge off? repo date (if it was for a vehicle)?

Just some questions.

Found out my repo was charged off in 3/99-and just happens to show the differential balance as well. (OC is reporting) If sol according to UCC article 2 applies, then 4 year sol would be up for suing me. Now, that being said, does a different cause of action arise from the differential balance? I beleive, since nothing was signed regarding the differential, it would fall under "oral agreement" as an implied contract. Again, wouldn't this create a new sol date (2 years at most)? Is there justification in assuming it is an oral agreement?

This repo wasnt done properly to begin with...no notice prior to or after the sale, etc. Just had some questions as to if the ucc sol applied as well as the oral agreement portion. Maybe it will help some people who live in states that have longer sol limits for broken sales contracts fall within a shorter sol time frame.

I may be way off base, but if I am not, I may FINALLY be seeing the big picture. Thanks Guys!!!!!

Nikki

Follow Ups:

• Re: Here we go again! lawguy 04/10/03 (0)
• Here we go again! nc 04/09/03 (1)
• Re: I lied...one more question, lol.... lawguy 04/09/03 (4)
  • Re: Eureka!!! lawguy 04/09/03 (2)
    • Re: I wonder why... lawguy 04/10/03 (0)
• Re: One more question, lawguy... lawguy 04/09/03 (6)
• One more question, lawguy... nc 04/09/03 (7)
  • I wonder why... nc 04/09/03 (1)
  • Eureka!!! nc 04/09/03 (3)
  • I lied...one more question, lol.... nc 04/09/03 (5)
• oops, misread lawguy 04/09/03 (8)
• Re: Whychat, Lady, Scott, Vets...SOL and Article 2 of UCC lawguy 04/09/03 (0)
• Re: Whychat, Lady, Scott, Vets...SOL and Article 2 of UCC patti 04/09/03 (0)

Post a Followup