Provide thoughtful responses to 2 of your peers.

POST A: Week 8 Licia

Bernard gave a few more items as collateral. The store sent in a perfection by forwarding a financing statement but it is required to describe the collateral it covers in the financing statement. The store missed that part or that detail is missing. Does the ring cover the synthesizer or the TV set? If they were to sue Bernard because Bernard has given them about $7000 worth of collateral for the TV set. Although he did agree to make payments with written copy of agreement but after two years he stopped. I believe that Bernard's decision to stop payments entered him in a default. They could sue him after using the synthesizer, and diamond ring towards his balance. The remaining balance on his account they could get a deficiency judgment to get the difference on the account.

POST B: 1. A I believe Rip M Off has perfected their security interest because they taken possession of the diamond ring along with a verbal agreement. When Rip M Off took possession of the ring as collateral they technically had perfected a security interest at that point.

1.B In this situation if the outstanding loan total is $4000 when the loan defaults then Rip M off can enforce their security by repossessing their property (the synthesizer) and reselling it. Depreciation is not taken into account in regards to the company being able to enforce their security interest.

1.C Assuming the market value of the TV is $500 and the value of the synthesizer at the time of Bernard's default is $3000 Rip M Off can enforce its vested security interest to recover the outstanding balance of $4000. Rip M Off most likely will not be able to recover the full amount/balance from the TV because it has a low market value to begin with. They could repossess the TV and resell it but they will not be able to recover the full amount. Any additional money that is leftover from selling the synthesizer should go back to Bernard.

2. I would argue that the practices of Rip M Off are unethical and their lending model puts many of their customers in situations where it is nearly impossible to pay off their loan. Also because they put such a high mark-up on their products it makes it impossible for them to get their money back. The terms of the financing agreement could also be explored in detail to determine they are adhering to legal and best practices. Their business model and practices make it arguable that the agreement is unconscionable. Especially if the company is misrepresenting the value of the television for example. I would also do a deep dive into why the financing statements covering the television set or ring were not sent to the secretaryof state. It should also be taken into consideration Bernard's specific situation. For example, if his current job and income make it impossible or improbable to pay off his debt.