In connection with any sale or lease of goods or services to consumers, in or affecting commerce as “commerce” is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, it is an unfair or deceptive act or practice within the meaning of section 5 of that Act for a seller, directly or indirectly, to:
(a) Take or receive a consumer credit contract which fails to contain the following provision in at least ten point, bold face, type:
NOTICE
ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED PURSUANT HERETO OR WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER.
or,
(b) Accept, as full or partial payment for such sale or lease, the proceeds of any purchase money loan (as purchase money loan is defined herein), unless any consumer credit contract made in connection with such purchase money loan contains the following provision in at least ten point, bold face, type:
NOTICE
ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER.
[40 FR 53506, Nov. 18, 1975; 40 FR 58131, Dec. 15, 1975]
Notes of Decisions
Johnson v. LONG BEACH MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2001-4 (2006)
dcd · cites it 8×
“Plaintiffs Derivative Claims Against Washington Mutual and/or Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2001-4 Pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 433.2 ......54 Table 2: The Court’s Disposition.”
Jackson v. South Holland Dodge, Inc. (2001)
ill · cites it 6×
“) 16 C.F.R. § 433.2 (a) (1997). The plaintiff further alleged that based on Chrysler's "extensive experience in financing used car transactions," Chrysler had actual knowledge of the amounts which car dealers disbursed to the issuers of extended warranties, and knew that the…”
Jarvis v. South Oak Dodge, Inc. (2002)
ill · cites it 6×
“See 16 C.F.R. § 433.2 (2000). Plaintiffs contend that when so read, section 70 preserves against the holder of a consumer lease all claims and defenses that a lessee could assert against the lessor.”
Matthew Kilgore v. Keybank, National Association (2013)
ca9 · cites it 4×
“” 16 C.F.R. § 433.2 (a). KILGORE V . KEYBANK, NAT ’L ASS’N 9 Defendants timely removed the case to the District Court for the Northern District of California,4 and filed a motion to compel arbitration.”
Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2018)
calctapp5d · cites it 4×
“" ( 16 C.F.R. § 433.2 .) On appeal, Wells Fargo contends the second sentence of the Holder Rule limits the Laffertys' recovery, including prejudgment interest and costs, to the $68,000 they actually paid on the loan for the motor home.”
Ellis v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. (1998)
ca11 · cites it 4×
“At the same time, in regulations set forth in 16 C.F.R. § 433.2 (1998), the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") requires that every consumer credit contract treating the sale or lease of goods or services contain the following language in bold type: NOTICE: ANY HOLDER OF THIS…”
Cook v. Chrysler Credit Corp. (1994)
almd · cites it 11×
“§§ 1331 and 1441 because the Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Chrysler Credit arise under federal law, 16 C.F.R. § 433.2 , enabled by 15 U.S.C. § 41 et seq.”
Felde v. Chrysler Credit Corp. (1991)
illappct · cites it 5×
“As required by the regulation codified at 16 C.F.R. §433.2 (1991), the contract stated: “Any holder of this consumer credit contract is subject to all claims and defenses which the debtor could assert against the seller of goods or services obtained pursuant hereto or with the…”
State Ex Rel. Stenberg v. CONSUMER'S CHOICE FOODS, INC. (2008)
neb · cites it 3×
“It concluded that collection of costs from Jayco was not limited by the Federal Trade Commission's holder rule (FTC Holder Rule), 16 C.F.R. § 433.2 (2008). Jayco appeals, and the State cross-appeals.”
Diaz v. Paragon Motors of Woodside, Inc. (2006)
nyed · cites it 3×
“V&T § 417-a claims. Also before the Court are Paragon’s and Americredit’s cross-motions for summary judgment on all claims alleged in the complaint.”
Lachapelle v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation (2002)
calctapp · cites it 2×
“Appellant argued in the trial court, as she argues here, that she is entitled to seek rescission from respondents even if the violations of the act alleged by her do not appear on the face of the lease, because Civil Code section 2986.”
Mardis v. Ford Motor Credit Co. (1994)
ala · cites it 4×
“With regard to the Mardises' first contention, 16 C.F.R. § 433.2 (1993) ("Preservation of Consumers' Claims and Defenses, Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices"), provides that the following statement, which was incorporated into the Mardises' contract, must be included in a…”
— 16 C.F.R. § 433.2(a) — 2 cases
— 16 C.F.R. § 433.2(b) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.