keith2468
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB
2 edits | Maybe the leasing companies are ones fleeced
I'm not a lawyer, but if I recall correctly, for a contract to be valid and enforceable in most jurisdictions:
- there has to be offer and acceptance
- there has to be consideration (i.e. both sides have to exchange something of value)
- the contract cannot be for an illegal activity
- the parties have to be legally competent (i.e. over 18, not drunk, etc.)
- no party may conceal a material fact from the other parties
So it might turn out that the leasing companies are the ones who have been fleeced.
It depends on what the judges say on the day they make the ruling, but it could be readily argued that:
1. A contract to collect money for fraud is a contract for an illegal activity.
In this case it would not matter whether the leasor knew that the activity was illegal or not -- the contract they have to collect the money would be void.
2. The leasees didn't know the devices were unnecessary, but the party arranging the contracts with the leasing companies did. In this case also it also might not matter that the leasing companies didn't know that material facts were being concealed -- their agents did.
Maybe the leasing companies are the ones who "took advantage of an offer too good to be true."
Like I said above, I'm not a lawyer, and I think it would come down to what a judge rules on the day.
That partly comes down to who is prepared to spend the most money on lawyers: The companies defrauded, or the leasing companies? And can the leasing companies lobby elected officials to direct law enforcement to end its participation on the side of the leasees. |
