I lied...one more question, lol....

Posted by nc (208.190.181.225) on April 09, 2003 at 15:39:08:

In Reply to: Re: One more question, lawguy... posted by lawguy on April 09, 2003 at 15:27:07:

Well, I guess there's a first for everything, lol.

I have been reading WA revised codes all afternoon. Nothing in there that differentiates autos from other goods. I think (and may be totally wrong) that article 9 applies for the rights of secured parties to repo their property if the contract is broken, rather than having to sue to get the stuff back under article 2. Article 2 may apply to all sales contracts, even if they are secured. There was something about six months, though, that I don't quite understand...will you translate? I found it in the sol part of ucc for WA

"Where an action commenced within the time limited by subsection (1)(4 years) is so terminated as to leave available a remedy by another action for the same breach such other action may be commenced after the expiration of the time limited and within six months after the termination of the first action unless the termination resulted from voluntary discontinuance or from dismissal for failure or neglect to prosecute."

What exactly doe sthis mean when applied to a repo? That they can choose not to sue on the contract, but have 6 months to decide whether or not to pursue differential arising from the broken contract? Please explain this as best you can...seems like they would have to file suit, withdraw and then file again within 6 months unless it was dropped for the reasons listed at the end of the paragraph.

Not sure if this helps me or would hurt me.

THANKS LAWGUY!!!!

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup