Application to File Brief and Brief of Amici Curiae, Center for Responsible Lending, National Association of Consumer Advocates, Public Citizen, Inc., and Public Good Law Center in Support of Appellants

B. Williams, T. Mermin
{"title":"Application to File Brief and Brief of Amici Curiae, Center for Responsible Lending, National Association of Consumer Advocates, Public Citizen, Inc., and Public Good Law Center in Support of Appellants","authors":"B. Williams, T. Mermin","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3282750","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Amicus Brief submitted to the California Supreme Court in De La Torre v CashCall Inc., 5 Cal.5th 966 (Cal. 2018): The Ninth Circuit has asked this Court whether the interest rate on consumer loans of $2,500 or more can render the loans unconscionable under section 22302 of the California Financial Code. The answer – with the proviso that any unconscionability determination must be made in the context of the terms and circumstances of the loans in question – is yes. . . .<br><br>When the legislature removed the interest rate cap on loans above $2,500, it did not impliedly repeal the historic principle that courts may intervene where a contract or provision is unduly oppressive or unconscionable. Rather, the legislature recognized that the statute’s unconscionability provision would remain a safeguard against the excesses of an unfettered free market. The doctrine of unconscionability, a “principle of equity applicable to all contracts generally,” applies to all provisions of all contracts. (See Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 807, 820.) A loan’s interest rate, whether governed by a statutory rate cap or not, is no exception. The incorporation of Civil Code section 1670.5 into Financial Code section 22302 evinces a clear legislative intent that courts should police the consumer credit market for unduly oppressive contract terms. The legislative mandate of Finance Code section 22302 is clear: where the market for consumer loans fails to produce socially tolerable terms, the courts may step in. <br><br>The attributes of the loans at issue in this case – their relatively large size, the length of the repayment period and, notably, their high interest rates – provide ample foundation for a finding that the loans are in fact unconscionable. For the current proceeding, however, it is enough to say this: The interest rate on consumer loans of $2,500 or more can – in the context of the other terms and circumstances of the loans – render the loans unconscionable under section 22302 of the California Financial Code.","PeriodicalId":142664,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Other Regulation that Pertains to Consumer Markets (Sub-Topic)","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Other Regulation that Pertains to Consumer Markets (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3282750","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Amicus Brief submitted to the California Supreme Court in De La Torre v CashCall Inc., 5 Cal.5th 966 (Cal. 2018): The Ninth Circuit has asked this Court whether the interest rate on consumer loans of $2,500 or more can render the loans unconscionable under section 22302 of the California Financial Code. The answer – with the proviso that any unconscionability determination must be made in the context of the terms and circumstances of the loans in question – is yes. . . .

When the legislature removed the interest rate cap on loans above $2,500, it did not impliedly repeal the historic principle that courts may intervene where a contract or provision is unduly oppressive or unconscionable. Rather, the legislature recognized that the statute’s unconscionability provision would remain a safeguard against the excesses of an unfettered free market. The doctrine of unconscionability, a “principle of equity applicable to all contracts generally,” applies to all provisions of all contracts. (See Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 807, 820.) A loan’s interest rate, whether governed by a statutory rate cap or not, is no exception. The incorporation of Civil Code section 1670.5 into Financial Code section 22302 evinces a clear legislative intent that courts should police the consumer credit market for unduly oppressive contract terms. The legislative mandate of Finance Code section 22302 is clear: where the market for consumer loans fails to produce socially tolerable terms, the courts may step in.

The attributes of the loans at issue in this case – their relatively large size, the length of the repayment period and, notably, their high interest rates – provide ample foundation for a finding that the loans are in fact unconscionable. For the current proceeding, however, it is enough to say this: The interest rate on consumer loans of $2,500 or more can – in the context of the other terms and circumstances of the loans – render the loans unconscionable under section 22302 of the California Financial Code.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
法院之友、负责任贷款中心、全国消费者权益协会、公共公民公司和公益法律中心支持上诉人的文件摘要和摘要的申请
在De La Torre诉CashCall Inc., 5 Cal.5th 966 (Cal. 2018)案中向加州最高法院提交的法庭之友简报:第九巡回法院已向本院询问,根据《加州金融法典》第22302条,2500美元或以上的消费贷款利率是否会使该贷款成为不合理的。答案是肯定的,但附带条件是,任何不合理的决定都必须在有关贷款的条款和情况的背景下作出。. . . .当立法机关取消2,500美元以上贷款的利率上限时,它并没有隐含地废除法院可以在合同或条款过度压迫或不合理时进行干预的历史原则。相反,立法机关认识到,法规的不合理条款仍将是防止不受约束的自由市场过度行为的保障。不合理原则,一种“普遍适用于所有合同的公平原则”,适用于所有合同的所有条款。(参见Graham诉剪刀尾公司(1981)28 Cal.3d 807, 820)贷款利率,不论是否受法定利率上限规管,亦不例外。将《民法典》第1670.5条纳入《金融法》第22302条,表明法院有明确的立法意图,即监管消费信贷市场,防止合同条款过于苛刻。《金融法》第22302条的立法授权是明确的:如果消费贷款市场无法产生社会可接受的条款,法院可以介入。本案所涉贷款的性质- -数额较大、还款期较长,特别是利率高- -为发现这些贷款实际上是不合理的提供了充分的基础。然而,就目前的诉讼程序而言,这样说就足够了:在贷款的其他条款和情况下,2500美元或更多的消费贷款的利率可能使贷款根据《加州金融法典》第22302条变得不合理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Property Law of Tokens Gender in the Competition Law Curriculum? 보험시장에서의 거래구조 문제와 소비자보호제도에 대한 소비자평가 연구(Consumer Evaluation of Transaction Structure and Consumer Protection System on Life and Non-Life Insurance Markets in Korea) Predatory Pricing in India Personalized Choice of Private Law
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1