FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3122628818> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3122628818 endingPage "500" @default.
• W3122628818 startingPage "427" @default.
• W3122628818 abstract "People tend do what they think is morally correct, and avoid what they think is immoral.1Rightness and wrongness . . . are things we feel.2IntroductionIn a market society characterized by record-level socio-economic inequalities, many business opportunities for exploitation arise. Greed competes with conscience; exploit or not exploit becomes a pressing question. Each time greed wins, an oppressive contract is born, depriving the exploited party of limited resources, further enriching the exploiter, and increasing the ever-growing gap the powerful and powerless.Such was the case of Henrietta Charley as described in a 2014 decision of the Supreme Court of New Mexico.3 Ms. Charley worked hard make ends meet. A mother of three and a medical assistant earning $10.71 per hour working in a medical center, found herself under financial distress and had take out a loan of $200 to buy groceries and gas.4 Although had never done this before,5 taking the loan was easy. The lender's storefront was one of many similar businesses crowding Farmington's Main Street, only a few minutes' drive from Ms. Charley's workplace.6 Inside, employees of Cash Loan Now were trained offer a swift ten-minute lending process anyone with a job.7 They were instructed misrepresent the interest rate in daily terms ranging between $1.00 and $1.50 per day for every one hundred dollars borrowed.8 The lender's manuals further scripted the interactions with the borrowers, requiring employees conceal the payment schedule and never explain that the loan was interest-only.9 It was only much later that Ms. Charley realized that she would have make sixteen biweekly payments of $90.68 each before any of her payments would be allocated toward her principal.10 The terms of the schedule had been purposely buried in her file.11 Misleading Ms. Charley and taking advantage of her financial distress and lack of experience, the lender awarded her a $200 loan that in reality carried a total finance charge of $2,160.04, equal a 1,147.14 APR (annual percentage rate).12 When sued, the lender cited a loophole, arguing that since it intentionally converted its loan products from payday loans signature loans,13 Ms. Charley's loan agreement was legal and therefore should not be invalidated by courts.14Unfortunately, Ms. Charley's loan agreement is by no means rare. In the world of fringe banking-the exploding industry of high-cost loans such as payday and auto-title loans-borrowers can only get credit under predatory terms, at sky-high costs that worsen their vulnerable financial state. Despite borrowers' seeming consent such loan agreements, the marks of exploitation15 are obvious: intentional targeting,16 calculated misrepresentation,17 callous taking advantage of others' distress,18 and the imposition of egregious interests and fees.19How should the law respond exploitative market behaviors that yield predatory contracts? By and large, our legal system delegates the problem the judiciary. Admittedly, many greed-born contracts slip under the legal radar because the exploited parties simply lack the means, monetary and otherwise, seek legal help. The exploiters, on the other hand, frequently rely on the law for enforcement of their contracts. Any time litigation ensues, courts must choose greed and conscience, exploiters and exploited, and enforcement and non-enforcement. Courts are faced with a difficult dilemma: ignore the problematic behavior of the stronger party or follow their sense of moral correctness and refuse support unscrupulous behavior. There is no doubt that courts are authorized invalidate unfair contracts. Legislation and precedents have established a variety of legal tools that the courts may use, foremost among which is the unconscionability20 principle.21 There is, however, a greater doubt-and an unresolved debate-on the normative question of how courts should utilize this principle. …" @default.
• W3122628818 created "2021-02-01" @default.
• W3122628818 creator A5062930440 @default.
• W3122628818 date "2016-03-01" @default.
• W3122628818 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W3122628818 title "Guilt-Free Markets? Unconscionability, Conscience, and Emotions" @default.
• W3122628818 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W3122628818 type Work @default.
• W3122628818 sameAs 3122628818 @default.
• W3122628818 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3122628818 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3122628818 hasAuthorship W3122628818A5062930440 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConcept C10180917 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConcept C145097563 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConcept C165696696 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConcept C2777764128 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConcept C2779432606 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConcept C37323507 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConcept C38652104 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConcept C504631918 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConceptScore W3122628818C10138342 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConceptScore W3122628818C10180917 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConceptScore W3122628818C144024400 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConceptScore W3122628818C144133560 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConceptScore W3122628818C145097563 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConceptScore W3122628818C162324750 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConceptScore W3122628818C165696696 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConceptScore W3122628818C17744445 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConceptScore W3122628818C199539241 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConceptScore W3122628818C2777764128 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConceptScore W3122628818C2778272461 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConceptScore W3122628818C2779432606 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConceptScore W3122628818C37323507 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConceptScore W3122628818C38652104 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConceptScore W3122628818C41008148 @default.
• W3122628818 hasConceptScore W3122628818C504631918 @default.
• W3122628818 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W3122628818 hasLocation W31226288181 @default.
• W3122628818 hasOpenAccess W3122628818 @default.
• W3122628818 hasPrimaryLocation W31226288181 @default.
• W3122628818 hasRelatedWork W121397990 @default.
• W3122628818 hasRelatedWork W1489304659 @default.
• W3122628818 hasRelatedWork W1535606159 @default.
• W3122628818 hasRelatedWork W1604484083 @default.
• W3122628818 hasRelatedWork W2081374912 @default.
• W3122628818 hasRelatedWork W250214021 @default.
• W3122628818 hasRelatedWork W2621355867 @default.
• W3122628818 hasRelatedWork W268900793 @default.
• W3122628818 hasRelatedWork W2961496404 @default.
• W3122628818 hasRelatedWork W298140793 @default.
• W3122628818 hasRelatedWork W2992581231 @default.
• W3122628818 hasRelatedWork W3122037715 @default.
• W3122628818 hasRelatedWork W3123679763 @default.
• W3122628818 hasRelatedWork W3126072001 @default.
• W3122628818 hasRelatedWork W328467395 @default.
• W3122628818 hasRelatedWork W595872194 @default.
• W3122628818 hasRelatedWork W63249839 @default.
• W3122628818 hasRelatedWork W7368825 @default.
• W3122628818 hasRelatedWork W91132477 @default.
• W3122628818 hasRelatedWork W626549070 @default.
• W3122628818 hasVolume "2016" @default.
• W3122628818 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3122628818 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3122628818 magId "3122628818" @default.
• W3122628818 workType "article" @default.