The Retail Installment Sales Act is not applicable to plaintiff's rent-to-own contracts with defendant since they are not retail sales installment contracts under the Act because defendant's purpose was not to sell goods and plaintiff was not obligated to buy the items she had rented; nor are the state's usury laws applicable since the contracts were essentially for the rental of goods, not a loan or forbearance of money, and they therefore fall within the time-price differential exception to those laws.
February 14, 2005 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
Presented by BigVoodoo
New Jersey Law Journal honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in New Jersey with their dedication to the profession.
This conference aims to help insurers and litigators better manage complex claims and litigation.
Recognizing innovation in the legal technology sector for working on precedent-setting, game-changing projects and initiatives.
Company DescriptionA prominent boutique AV rated Education Law firm located in Westbury, New York. Our firm specializes in education law, sp...
Seeking motivated and skilled litigation attorney to join our dynamic defense litigation firm. Role Involves:Conducting thorough research.Ha...
DEPUTY PORT ATTORNEY III Oakland, CA Salary: $17,294 - $21,419/month, 37.5-hr work week Your Port. Your Community. Your Career. Whe...