JoshNJ
Premium
join:2001-12-25
Freehold, NJ
1 edit | reply to jerr123
Re: Spitzer is THE MAN.
said by jerr123:
The consumer has a right to stop their payments if they are not getting the "total solution" promised them.
no they don't, if the money is laid out by the bank and not norvergence, the customer needs to follow by what they agreed to pay. the bank didn't scam anyone.
--
I support the RIAA |
|
jerr123
| reply to garmst
Where you are missing the point is that Norvergence sold the consumer a "total solution" that guaranteed a cost savings. The "package" could not be bought unless the consumer rented the "Matrix" box. The consumer was not leasing the box for a period of time at the end of which he would own it. This was not a leasing arrangement. Norvergence perpetrated this scam on the leasing companies as well as the end user. The leasing companies recourse is to go after Norvergence and not try to recoup their loss from the consumer. The consumer has a right to stop their payments if they are not getting the "total solution" promised them. |
|
garmst
join:2000-09-17
New York, NY
 ·Speakeasy
| reply to clecrupt9
The risk for banks is irresponsible people who make bad financial decisions, will not take responsibility for them and call upon a thug with the power of government to make them whole at an innocent parties expense.
Maybe the banks will have to "redline screen" for deadbeat, crybaby customers and not lend money to them. |
|
clecrupt9
join:2002-01-22
GA
| reply to JPCass
said by JPCass  : said by garmst :Spitzer didn't go after Norvergence, he went after the finance companies that loaned the customers the money to buy the equipment. Spitzer went after an innocent party who had nothing to do with the crime. Finance companies have some duty, if only to themselves and their shareholders, to be sure that they are not involved in unconscionable transactions that amongst other liabilities run a higher risk of default. Thats right- What higher risk can you have than doing business with a company that can attract a State AG on your tail.
But you know, everyday there is a big financial institution in trouble over something. |
|
garmst
join:2000-09-17
New York, NY
·Speakeasy
| reply to JPCass
A bank has no such duty at all, particulary in law. A banks duty is to follow all applicable laws in the pursuit of its business, which it did, and provide maximum value to the sharholders.
You the borrower or lessor have the responsibility to determine that what you want to buy is fair and suitable for your purposes. This is your responsibility and no one elses.
Why do you want the bank to look into your personal affairs to determine what you want is good, proper, fair and appropriate? Do you want them to decide that the car you want to buy / lease is proper? Do you want them to decide if you should have that house you want to buy? Are you that irresponsible that you have to blame a bank for being reckless in your business and prersonal dealings? |
|
JPCass
join:2001-01-23
Denver, CO
| reply to garmst
said by garmst :Spitzer didn't go after Norvergence, he went after the finance companies that loaned the customers the money to buy the equipment. Spitzer went after an innocent party who had nothing to do with the crime. Finance companies have some duty, if only to themselves and their shareholders, to be sure that they are not involved in unconscionable transactions that amongst other liabilities run a higher risk of default. They certainly wouldn't, or shouldn't, make a loan based on something for collateral without due diligence to ascertain the true recoverable value of the collateral, and they should take somewhat similar care with any financing or leasing.
Lenders charge interest in part based on risk, and I'd say that in this case they took a risk and lost due to doing business with a disreputable vendor. Big businesses, particularly the sort of supposedly reputable names involved in this, need occasional reminders to tighten up their business practices. |
|
garmst
join:2000-09-17
New York, NY
·Speakeasy
| reply to Maggs
All the bank did was loan you money. It is your job to decide what you want to buy or lease is worth it.
The bank makes money on the interest and takes a risk that you won't pay.
In the interest rate you will pay on your credits cards and loans, you are paying for the Norvergence scam.
This could be a bad precedent. You don't want banks adding even more criteria to wherether or not to loan money. But this is typical New York State Socialism at work. One more nail in the NYS coffin. |
|
JoshNJ
Premium
join:2001-12-25
Freehold, NJ
| reply to Maggs
said by Maggs :The total cost of the copier was $16,000 for a really old copy unit, they were appriasing it at face value pretty much. So what? If you agree to that in your contract, you should have to abide by it, if you don't understand how much the equipment is worth you shouldn't be leasing/buying it in the first place.
--
I support the RIAA |
|
Maggs
Premium
join:2002-11-29
Woodside, NY
 ·RCN CABLE
| reply to garmst
The finance companies were co conspirators. Should the banks have auditors who can tell you the value of an item, or lease term agreement. The banks were being greedy, and they got caught.
I used to work in an IT Dept when we had to RMA a Toshiba Copier back to Wells Fargo Financial Leasing. The machine was 6 years old, we recorded the serials and did a parts inventory. If there was any damage to the unit we would be charged for it, even though the counter registered 190,000 copies.
The total cost of the copier was $16,000 for a really old copy unit, they were appriasing it at face value pretty much.
They lie, cheat, and steal, so its about time they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
--
Will do anything for new job, and health plan. Someone get me out of hell. |
|
garmst
join:2000-09-17
New York, NY
·Speakeasy
| reply to grcore
Spitzer didn't go after Norvergence, he went after the finance companies that loaned the customers the money to buy the equipment. Spitzer went after an innocent party who had nothing to do with the crime.
As a result, the people who paid for this is all of us. This is effectively a loan loss for the banks that will be passed on to all of the people who lease/finance in the form of higher interest payments.
No win for the common man here. Just pilfering by Spitzer. |
|
grcore
New and Improved
join:2003-12-06
usa
| reply to fartness
When he goes after these theives, they are as good as done. The SEC hates him because he makes all the Washington bueraucrats look like co-conspirators (because they are all paid off by the big corporations).
Go Elliot "Untouchable" Spitzer!
G |
|
fartness
Computersoc Dot Com
Premium
join:2003-03-25
Look Outside
clubs: | reply to stufried
Re: Let the non-NYers know who he is.
That was just added. |
|
