4 ms·

It’s a contract. You agree to the terms or you borrow the money from somewhere else. The thing this article casually omits throughout, aside from the opening,

It’s a contract. You agree to the terms or you borrow the money from somewhere else. The thing this article casually omits throughout, aside from the opening, is that these are sub-prime borrowers. They have a history of poor credit. They probably are not putting much money down. They have a history of being late on payments. In order to get the lending terms THEY find favorable, they agreed to install an interrupt device. I just purchased a car without one and got a great rate because I spent years... YEARS! Fixing and improving my credit history. These people want the same terms without the work or change in behavior.

avmich 6y ago
> It’s a contract. America has a long and honored tradition of mechanisms preventing some clauses in contracts to be legal. IANAL, but maybe a next patch to laws could be to forbid such behavior (on the side of lenders) as predatory. Or maybe more sane approaches are possible. It's even more important when some clauses can be enforced mechanically, without going through the legal system. This underscores the importance of having the ability to negate mechanical means to enforce contract clauses - at least in some cases :) like this. With rise of IoT, the problem seems to be getting more urgent.
SturgeonsLaw 6y ago
It just seems utterly bizarre though. "You can buy this TV on credit, but you're only allowed to watch the news on it". "I'll loan you money to buy an oven, but you're only allowed to roast chicken in it". For any other product it seems ridiculous, and rightly so. The car obviously has some kind of tracking device in it for them to be able to tell where it is, and that it has even violated this clause, so they can't be afraid that she'll drive off into the sunset, never to be heard from again. Aside from the Kafka factor, it also limits her to job opportunities found only in those counties, which would make it harder for her to improve her situation than if she had free movement. > These people want the same terms without the work or change in behavior. Nobody's arguing that a subprime borrower should receive the same interest rate as someone with a good credit history, but limiting the use of the vehicle is an entirely different scenario, and one I'm struggling to think of any justification for.

avmich 6y ago

> It’s a contract. America has a long and honored tradition of mechanisms preventing some clauses in contracts to be legal. IANAL, but maybe a next patch to laws could be to forbid such behavior (on the side of lenders) as predatory. Or maybe more sane approaches are possible. It's even more important when some clauses can be enforced mechanically, without going through the legal system. This underscores the importance of having the ability to negate mechanical means to enforce contract clauses - at least in some cases :) like this. With rise of IoT, the problem seems to be getting more urgent.

SturgeonsLaw 6y ago

It just seems utterly bizarre though. "You can buy this TV on credit, but you're only allowed to watch the news on it". "I'll loan you money to buy an oven, but you're only allowed to roast chicken in it". For any other product it seems ridiculous, and rightly so. The car obviously has some kind of tracking device in it for them to be able to tell where it is, and that it has even violated this clause, so they can't be afraid that she'll drive off into the sunset, never to be heard from again. Aside from the Kafka factor, it also limits her to job opportunities found only in those counties, which would make it harder for her to improve her situation than if she had free movement. > These people want the same terms without the work or change in behavior. Nobody's arguing that a subprime borrower should receive the same interest rate as someone with a good credit history, but limiting the use of the vehicle is an entirely different scenario, and one I'm struggling to think of any justification for.