Thanks to you too, lawguy...(m)

Posted by nc (208.190.181.225) on April 10, 2003 at 16:25:55:

In Reply to: Re: Thank you!!...(m) posted by lawguy on April 10, 2003 at 15:42:33:

You are sweet...actually, I work for a lawyer...not doing any legal work, though. I do forensic accounting for some clients and the books for the law firm as well. I enjoy researching law and really have fun discussing and interpreting what I think it says. Rather than be a lawyer, I would much rather be the judge, LMAO. I am actually thinking of running for the J.P. position for our precinct...in about 8 years, lol. I know, it doesnt take anything but a h.s. diploma to be a s.c. judge, but I think it would be fun to listen to people explain themselves and how the either claim they were wronged or claim they didn't "do the wronging".

I really appreciate your comments. I am still researching ucc. State RISA and motor vehicle laws didnt seem to apply much when it comes to SOL. One thing I am trying to find the "connection" to is whether Article 9 is independant of Article 2. Just trying to make the dots connect. Yes, you have to have a sale in order to perfect a secured transaction. Since there are'nt separate SOL's listed for each of the titles, you would think it all falls under UCC Article 2. I guess there are arguements to both sides. Now, under Article 2, under "scope" and exclusions, "merchant" isn't used anywhere, "consumer" isn't used anywhere, etc...just buyer and seller. And the digging goes further. I still need to read the MD case, even though it wouldn't apply in WA and might actually piss a WA judge off, ya know?

Thanks again. Oh, and if you ever need someone to run some theories by, I know I'm not a lawyer, but I would love to hone my law-comprehension skills, lol.

Thanks Again!
Nikki

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup