Also, he said that he would be willing to sell the Dealership to a third party. The loan officer verbally said that the Bank would not foreclose or sue on the promissory note as long as the note was paid when the Dealership was sold, but not later than September 1, 2010.
Analysis: The promissory note and the deed of trust both contained the following clause: “Any amendment hereto or modification hereof must be in writing signed by both parties. Any waiver or indulgence of any default by Dealer shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent default. Time is of the essence hereof.” Clearly, the Dealer was able only to reach a verbal settlement with the bank officer, so his liability exists and he can be prosecuted for not making a written negotiation.
Issue 2: The promissory note called for monthly payments of interest but 16 of the 24 interest payments due under the note had been made untimely. Moreover, the last three payments had not been paid at all.
Analysis: It is astonishing that the bank did not take action in time. The bank could have sought legal help against the Dealer earlier too. In such circumstances, the role of the concerned lean officer should be examined by the court.
as stated by the website “Cornell Law School … Lawyers in the Best Sense” under the auspices of the American Law Institute and the National Conference of Commissioners on United States Laws. Needless to say, this article is equipped with a strong framework to prevent unfair and unreliable financial action and prosecute the wrong doer.
“U.C.C. – ARTICLE 3 – NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS.” Cornell Law School … Lawyers in the Best Sense. The American Law Institute and the National Conference of Commissioners on United States Laws, 2005. Web. 7 Aug. 2010.