East Providence Credit Union v. Geremia

East Providence Credit Union v. Geremia - because they...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
East Providence Credit Union v. Geremia 103 R.I. 597 (1968) Fact: Procedural Facts: Operative Facts: Husband and wife owned a car. They took out an auto loan to purchase the car, and the auto loan had a requirement where the owners must pay for fire, collision, upset or overturn insurance on the car, and if they did not, then the insurance would be added on to the auto loan. The wife agreed to the added on to the auto loan after they stopped paying the insurance. Soon later, the car had an accident, which wrecked the car. It would have been obviously covered by the insurance, however, the auto loan person did not pay the insurance premium. Now the insurance is suing for the loan amount. Owners is counter-suing the auto loan for the car amount,
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: because they didn’t pay the premium. Issue: Whether the auto lender could assert a promissory estopple to the owners to pay the auto loan in full because of an “unrecompensated” promises they made. Rule: A contract is when there is mutural agreement, with a offer, an acceptance, and consideration. Rational: There was mutual assent, an offer, the lender stated that they would add the premium to the loan if the owners didn’t pay for the insurance. The owner called to accept. And the consideration is, repayment + interest. Holding: There was a contract already, so there was no need for promissory estoppels. Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences:...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online