Dennegar Liability
Published on May 02, 2021
No Description
MORE DECKS TO EXPLORE
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
DENNEGAR LIABILITY
Kara Silvia
NEIB-Cambridge College
MBA530 Legal and Ethical
Dr. William Aquilino
Good Afternoon, my name is Kara Silvia and today I will be discussing whether Lee Dennegar is liable for credit card debt accrued by Mark Knutson per the 2007 New Century Financial Services v. Dennegar case.
Photo by allenallen1910
agenda
- Overview of case
- Contract Law
- Summary
- References
We will first be reviewing the main points of the case, then we will move on to discuss contract law. We will then summarize all of the laws and why it makes Dennegar liable for the debt accrued on the AT&T credit card.
overview
- 2007 New Century Financial Services v. Dennegar case
- $14,752.93 debt to an AT&T credit card
- Dennegar had previously given Knutson control of all of his finances, his mail and allowed him to forge his name on checks
- Dennegar appointed Knutson as an agent for financial decisions
In the 2007 New Century Financial Services v. Dennegar case, they argue whether Dennegar is liable for a $14,752.93 debt to an AT&T credit card. The credit card was opened by Mark Knutson in 2001 with Lee Dennegars’ name. Dennegar had previously given Knutson control of all of his finances, let him handle all the mail sent to the residence, and let him forge his name on checks (Fisher, n.d.). The judge agreed that since Dennegar had appointed Knutson as an agent for his financial decisions, that Knutson was authorized to apply for this credit card and therefore, Dennegar will need to take on the debt.
contract law
- A valid contract is put in place when there is an offer and an acceptance (Lunenburg, 2011)
- Per UCC 2-207, as long as there are no changes after the original verbal agreement, the agreement is effective (Bix, 2012).
A valid contract is put in place when there is an offer and an acceptance (Lunenburg, 2011). When Knutson filled out the credit card application and accepted the disclosures in Dennegars’ name, they entered a contract with AT&T. There is an additional contract that was made, which is the oral contract between both Knutson and Dennegar. In regards to the UCC 2-207, as long as there are no changes after the original oral agreement, the agreement is effective (Bix, 2012). Based on the information provided in the case, it does not seem as though any additional changes were made after Dennegar allowed Knutson to take control of his financial affairs.
contract law
- Certain obligations are passed down from the principals to the agents (Mejia, 2019)
- The Truth in Lending Act provides protection for a card holder if transactions on a card are unauthorized (Caulder, 2014)
With this, Dennegar and Knutson entered into a principal/agent relationship within shareholder theory. Within this, certain obligations are passed down from the principals to the agents (Mejia, 2019). In this case, it means Dennegar is liable for the AT&T credit card debt, as he allowed Knutson to perform these transactions. The Truth in Lending Act protects a cardholder if transactions on a card are unauthorized and if the cardholder alerts someone that they did not make these purchases themselves (Caulder, 2014). Dennegar did not state that these transactions were unauthorized promptly and also stated that some of the purchases on the credit card were ones he authorized Knutson to make (Fisher, n.d.). This proves that at least to some level, Dennegar knew that Knutson was making these purchases and either knew they were made with a credit card or didn’t question how they were paying for these.
summary
- Dennegar should be liable for the debt
- The verbal agreement between Dennegar and Knutson allowed Knutson to take control
- Valid contract made by the agent with AT&T
To summarize, Dennegar should be liable for the debt accrued on the AT&T credit card. This is due to the relationship and access he gave Knutson. Dennegar put himself in a position where he could be taken advantage of. The verbal agreement between the two parties allowed Knutson to take full control of Dennegars' finances. There was also a valid contract made by the agent with AT&T with authority from the principal. Dennegar allowed someone to accrue this debt with his name and therefore will be liable to pay it off.
References
- Bix, B. (2012). Contract Law : Rules, Theory, and Context. Cambridge University Press.
- Caulder, J. L. (2014). Avoiding the Nuclear Option: Balancing Borrower and Lender Rights Under the Truth in Lending Act’s Right of Rescission. Washington & Lee Law Review, 71(3), 1925–1977.
references
- FISHER, J.A.D. (n.d.). NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL SERVICES INC v. DENNEGAR. Retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1263011.htm...
- Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). The Law of Contracts: What Constitutes a Contract? FOCUS on Colleges, Universities & Schools, 6(1), 1–4.
references
- Mejia, S. (2019). Weeding Out Flawed Versions of Shareholder Primacy: A Reflection on the Moral Obligations That Carry Over from Principals to Agents. Business Ethics Quarterly, 29(4), 519–544. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2019.18
