big banks at risk in foreclosure fraud

[Dukehorn]

Depends, are you talking about an activist judge or a strict constructionist?

If I have a rep and warrant in my contract that you’re providing “goods and services” in a certain condition and you don’t provide them in that state, I certainly can sue for breach of contract.

As for the remedy for breach, that’ll be the big issue. Does the judge invalidate the transaction? Doubtful because of the mass chaos that’ll happen but I’m sure there will be a nice hefty financial penalty for failing to live up to one’s contractual obligations.

All stated with the caveat that I’m a transactional attorney not a litigator.

[Anonymous]

Question for our lawyers out there:

Isn’t there a notion in contract law of “substantial performance” (or called something like that)?

The idea is that if one party basically did what they agreed to do, even if a few details are in dispute, the other party can’t just throw the whole contract out.

It’s a very common-sense notion.

The bank gave the homeowner hundreds of thousands of dollars.

They upheld their end of the deal. They performed. Substantially.

Mortgage contracts are actually quite simple: Bank gives you a big pile of money and you have to pay it back. *Anybody* can understand that.

I don’t care how many pages are in the fine print, if our legal system chooses to ignore the fundamental notion behind a contract in favor of some sniveling details, then we are indeed spiraling down the crapper.

And before the bank-haters start cheering about the current headlines, think about this: What kind of precedent will it set if homeowners get to keep their houses even though the bank gave them the money?

Next time you hand over your cash to buy something, and the vendor chooses just keep the cash and give nothing in return, will the law be on your side?

[EDIT: I know the article in the OP is about something slightly different than the topic of the question I’m posing here]

[Anonymous]

Question for our lawyers out there:

Isn’t there a notion in contract law of “substantial performance” (or called something like that)?

The idea is that if one party basically did what they agreed to do, even if a few details are in dispute, the other party can’t just throw the whole contract out.

It’s a very common-sense notion.

The bank gave the homeowner hundreds of thousands of dollars.

They upheld their end of the deal. They performed. Substantially.

Mortgage contracts are actually quite simple: Bank gives you a big pile of money and you have to pay it back. *Anybody* can understand that.

I don’t care how many pages are in the fine print, if our legal system chooses to ignore the fundamental notion behind a contract in favor of some sniveling details, then we are indeed spiraling down the crapper.

And before the bank-haters start cheering about the current headlines, think about this: What kind of precedent will it set if homeowners get to keep their houses even though the bank gave them the money?

Next time you hand over your cash to buy something, and the vendor chooses just keep the cash and give nothing in return, will the law be on your side?

[EDIT: I know the article in the OP is about something slightly different than the topic of the question I’m posing here]

[Anonymous]

Question for our lawyers out there:

Isn’t there a notion in contract law of “substantial performance” (or called something like that)?

The idea is that if one party basically did what they agreed to do, even if a few details are in dispute, the other party can’t just throw the whole contract out.

It’s a very common-sense notion.

The bank gave the homeowner hundreds of thousands of dollars.

They upheld their end of the deal. They performed. Substantially.

Mortgage contracts are actually quite simple: Bank gives you a big pile of money and you have to pay it back. *Anybody* can understand that.

I don’t care how many pages are in the fine print, if our legal system chooses to ignore the fundamental notion behind a contract in favor of some sniveling details, then we are indeed spiraling down the crapper.

And before the bank-haters start cheering about the current headlines, think about this: What kind of precedent will it set if homeowners get to keep their houses even though the bank gave them the money?

Next time you hand over your cash to buy something, and the vendor chooses just keep the cash and give nothing in return, will the law be on your side?

[EDIT: I know the article in the OP is about something slightly different than the topic of the question I’m posing here]

[Anonymous]

Question for our lawyers out there:

Isn’t there a notion in contract law of “substantial performance” (or called something like that)?

The idea is that if one party basically did what they agreed to do, even if a few details are in dispute, the other party can’t just throw the whole contract out.

It’s a very common-sense notion.

The bank gave the homeowner hundreds of thousands of dollars.

They upheld their end of the deal. They performed. Substantially.

Mortgage contracts are actually quite simple: Bank gives you a big pile of money and you have to pay it back. *Anybody* can understand that.

I don’t care how many pages are in the fine print, if our legal system chooses to ignore the fundamental notion behind a contract in favor of some sniveling details, then we are indeed spiraling down the crapper.

And before the bank-haters start cheering about the current headlines, think about this: What kind of precedent will it set if homeowners get to keep their houses even though the bank gave them the money?

Next time you hand over your cash to buy something, and the vendor chooses just keep the cash and give nothing in return, will the law be on your side?

[EDIT: I know the article in the OP is about something slightly different than the topic of the question I’m posing here]

[Anonymous]

Question for our lawyers out there:

Isn’t there a notion in contract law of “substantial performance” (or called something like that)?

The idea is that if one party basically did what they agreed to do, even if a few details are in dispute, the other party can’t just throw the whole contract out.

It’s a very common-sense notion.

The bank gave the homeowner hundreds of thousands of dollars.

They upheld their end of the deal. They performed. Substantially.

Mortgage contracts are actually quite simple: Bank gives you a big pile of money and you have to pay it back. *Anybody* can understand that.

I don’t care how many pages are in the fine print, if our legal system chooses to ignore the fundamental notion behind a contract in favor of some sniveling details, then we are indeed spiraling down the crapper.

And before the bank-haters start cheering about the current headlines, think about this: What kind of precedent will it set if homeowners get to keep their houses even though the bank gave them the money?

Next time you hand over your cash to buy something, and the vendor chooses just keep the cash and give nothing in return, will the law be on your side?

[EDIT: I know the article in the OP is about something slightly different than the topic of the question I’m posing here]

[davelj]

[quote=Rich Toscano]

(And as context and to emphasize that first point, I think that a huge portion of the financial industry serves only as a giant parasite on the productive economy, and that the financial industry bailout has been/continues to be an economic and moral catastrophe).[/quote]

I agree with this but I’m going to provide a (partial) defense for it nonetheless.

My basic argument is that: A lot of people love the Parasite. They may not realize it, but they do. Allow me to explain with an anecdote.

Arguably, active asset management is one clear example of the parasitical nature of the financial industry. Very few managers outperform on a risk-adjusted basis after fees. So, there’s this huge stream of fees that goes into the financial industry’s hands that’s not productive. But do a lot of folks actually get something of value out of it? I’d argue they do. What, you may ask. In a word: Hope. Most people think they can find that one or handful of managers that will outperform. And the hope that they will find or have found such a manager gives them warm feelings about the future not unlike those experienced by someone walking up to a black jack table. And when they go to sleep, they dream of how well their manager is going to do relative to the rest. And it makes them smile. And they go to sleep, wake up, rinse and repeat. In other words, while much of the financial industry doesn’t provide real tangible benefits to folks, it provides a lot of “psychic benefits” via hopes and dreams. How do you place a value on such psychic benefits? Well, you can’t. And that’s the beauty of it.

So, on the one hand, I agree that there’s a shitpile of “waste” in the financial industry. On the other hand, people still clamor to participate because, well, they always think it’s the other (stupid) people who are actually paying for most of it, because “their” managers/advisors are the “good ones.” And this gives them hope and makes them feel superior. And who can put a value on that?

[davelj]

[quote=Rich Toscano]

(And as context and to emphasize that first point, I think that a huge portion of the financial industry serves only as a giant parasite on the productive economy, and that the financial industry bailout has been/continues to be an economic and moral catastrophe).[/quote]

I agree with this but I’m going to provide a (partial) defense for it nonetheless.

My basic argument is that: A lot of people love the Parasite. They may not realize it, but they do. Allow me to explain with an anecdote.

Arguably, active asset management is one clear example of the parasitical nature of the financial industry. Very few managers outperform on a risk-adjusted basis after fees. So, there’s this huge stream of fees that goes into the financial industry’s hands that’s not productive. But do a lot of folks actually get something of value out of it? I’d argue they do. What, you may ask. In a word: Hope. Most people think they can find that one or handful of managers that will outperform. And the hope that they will find or have found such a manager gives them warm feelings about the future not unlike those experienced by someone walking up to a black jack table. And when they go to sleep, they dream of how well their manager is going to do relative to the rest. And it makes them smile. And they go to sleep, wake up, rinse and repeat. In other words, while much of the financial industry doesn’t provide real tangible benefits to folks, it provides a lot of “psychic benefits” via hopes and dreams. How do you place a value on such psychic benefits? Well, you can’t. And that’s the beauty of it.

So, on the one hand, I agree that there’s a shitpile of “waste” in the financial industry. On the other hand, people still clamor to participate because, well, they always think it’s the other (stupid) people who are actually paying for most of it, because “their” managers/advisors are the “good ones.” And this gives them hope and makes them feel superior. And who can put a value on that?

[davelj]

[quote=Rich Toscano]

(And as context and to emphasize that first point, I think that a huge portion of the financial industry serves only as a giant parasite on the productive economy, and that the financial industry bailout has been/continues to be an economic and moral catastrophe).[/quote]

I agree with this but I’m going to provide a (partial) defense for it nonetheless.

My basic argument is that: A lot of people love the Parasite. They may not realize it, but they do. Allow me to explain with an anecdote.

Arguably, active asset management is one clear example of the parasitical nature of the financial industry. Very few managers outperform on a risk-adjusted basis after fees. So, there’s this huge stream of fees that goes into the financial industry’s hands that’s not productive. But do a lot of folks actually get something of value out of it? I’d argue they do. What, you may ask. In a word: Hope. Most people think they can find that one or handful of managers that will outperform. And the hope that they will find or have found such a manager gives them warm feelings about the future not unlike those experienced by someone walking up to a black jack table. And when they go to sleep, they dream of how well their manager is going to do relative to the rest. And it makes them smile. And they go to sleep, wake up, rinse and repeat. In other words, while much of the financial industry doesn’t provide real tangible benefits to folks, it provides a lot of “psychic benefits” via hopes and dreams. How do you place a value on such psychic benefits? Well, you can’t. And that’s the beauty of it.

So, on the one hand, I agree that there’s a shitpile of “waste” in the financial industry. On the other hand, people still clamor to participate because, well, they always think it’s the other (stupid) people who are actually paying for most of it, because “their” managers/advisors are the “good ones.” And this gives them hope and makes them feel superior. And who can put a value on that?

[davelj]

[quote=Rich Toscano]

(And as context and to emphasize that first point, I think that a huge portion of the financial industry serves only as a giant parasite on the productive economy, and that the financial industry bailout has been/continues to be an economic and moral catastrophe).[/quote]

I agree with this but I’m going to provide a (partial) defense for it nonetheless.

My basic argument is that: A lot of people love the Parasite. They may not realize it, but they do. Allow me to explain with an anecdote.

Arguably, active asset management is one clear example of the parasitical nature of the financial industry. Very few managers outperform on a risk-adjusted basis after fees. So, there’s this huge stream of fees that goes into the financial industry’s hands that’s not productive. But do a lot of folks actually get something of value out of it? I’d argue they do. What, you may ask. In a word: Hope. Most people think they can find that one or handful of managers that will outperform. And the hope that they will find or have found such a manager gives them warm feelings about the future not unlike those experienced by someone walking up to a black jack table. And when they go to sleep, they dream of how well their manager is going to do relative to the rest. And it makes them smile. And they go to sleep, wake up, rinse and repeat. In other words, while much of the financial industry doesn’t provide real tangible benefits to folks, it provides a lot of “psychic benefits” via hopes and dreams. How do you place a value on such psychic benefits? Well, you can’t. And that’s the beauty of it.

So, on the one hand, I agree that there’s a shitpile of “waste” in the financial industry. On the other hand, people still clamor to participate because, well, they always think it’s the other (stupid) people who are actually paying for most of it, because “their” managers/advisors are the “good ones.” And this gives them hope and makes them feel superior. And who can put a value on that?

[davelj]

[quote=Rich Toscano]

(And as context and to emphasize that first point, I think that a huge portion of the financial industry serves only as a giant parasite on the productive economy, and that the financial industry bailout has been/continues to be an economic and moral catastrophe).[/quote]

I agree with this but I’m going to provide a (partial) defense for it nonetheless.

My basic argument is that: A lot of people love the Parasite. They may not realize it, but they do. Allow me to explain with an anecdote.

Arguably, active asset management is one clear example of the parasitical nature of the financial industry. Very few managers outperform on a risk-adjusted basis after fees. So, there’s this huge stream of fees that goes into the financial industry’s hands that’s not productive. But do a lot of folks actually get something of value out of it? I’d argue they do. What, you may ask. In a word: Hope. Most people think they can find that one or handful of managers that will outperform. And the hope that they will find or have found such a manager gives them warm feelings about the future not unlike those experienced by someone walking up to a black jack table. And when they go to sleep, they dream of how well their manager is going to do relative to the rest. And it makes them smile. And they go to sleep, wake up, rinse and repeat. In other words, while much of the financial industry doesn’t provide real tangible benefits to folks, it provides a lot of “psychic benefits” via hopes and dreams. How do you place a value on such psychic benefits? Well, you can’t. And that’s the beauty of it.

So, on the one hand, I agree that there’s a shitpile of “waste” in the financial industry. On the other hand, people still clamor to participate because, well, they always think it’s the other (stupid) people who are actually paying for most of it, because “their” managers/advisors are the “good ones.” And this gives them hope and makes them feel superior. And who can put a value on that?

[gandalf]

[quote=Rich Toscano](And as context and to emphasize that first point, I think that a huge portion of the financial industry serves only as a giant parasite on the productive economy, and that the financial industry bailout has been/continues to be an economic and moral catastrophe).[/quote]

THIS.

[gandalf]

[quote=Rich Toscano](And as context and to emphasize that first point, I think that a huge portion of the financial industry serves only as a giant parasite on the productive economy, and that the financial industry bailout has been/continues to be an economic and moral catastrophe).[/quote]

THIS.

[gandalf]

[quote=Rich Toscano](And as context and to emphasize that first point, I think that a huge portion of the financial industry serves only as a giant parasite on the productive economy, and that the financial industry bailout has been/continues to be an economic and moral catastrophe).[/quote]

THIS.

[gandalf]

[quote=Rich Toscano](And as context and to emphasize that first point, I think that a huge portion of the financial industry serves only as a giant parasite on the productive economy, and that the financial industry bailout has been/continues to be an economic and moral catastrophe).[/quote]

THIS.

[Author]

Posts