The good news is that this benefit is often available for the asking. When the parties are feeling friendly and there are no disputes on the horizon, a contract provision that awards attorneys fees when a litigant has to go to court to collect money or assert other contractual rights will often attract no attention at all. It may even seem fair to the adverse party, who thinks that such a circumstances is so remote that it doesn’t matter.
Posted by Cliff Tuttle In 1974, Pennsylvania enacted an important piece of consumer protection legislation known as Act 6 of 1974. It defined a “Residential Mortgage”, as “an obligation to pay a principal sum of $50,000.00 or less evidenced by a security document and secured by a lien upon real property located within this Commonwealth [...]
The Consumer Protection Law contains a series of specific factual circumstances when the statute may be applied, including through recent amendment, a “catch-all” provision: “engaging in any other fraudulent or deceptive conduct which creates a liklihood of confusion or of misunderstanding” (Sec. 201-2(4)(xxi). This provision, while expanding the scope of UTPCPL, is held by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to require strict proof of all of the elements of common law fraud. This in turn, creates a substantial burden of proof on the Plaintiff and has lead to the demise of numerous Consumer Protection Law cases based on the catch-all provision where one or more of the elements of common law fraud could not be proven.
The proposed increase in FDIC Insurance to $250,000.00 per account is coming about under the worst circumstances, but just in time. Increased deposits in insured institutions will mean more money for community banks, credit unions and thrifts to lend for home loans, small business loans and consumer loans. While the Senate enacted it last night as a temporary measure, we predict that the House will adopt the increase in deposit insurance and it will never be permitted to lapse.
What is going on here? Does the fact that Palin, a non-lawyer, might someday be President and thus nominating members of the judiciary, justify this kind of vetting? And is it meaningful? [Quick -- name a US Supreme Court case!] Perhaps her rival, Senator Biden, who might someday appoint a future Secretary of the Interior, should also be given a quiz on Alaskan wildlife and natural resources. Of course, that won’t happen. It wouldn’t be as much fun as picking on little Sarah.