Rewritten contract backdating
This should cover the majority of cases that come across corporate counsel’s desk.
For those instances where a document is intended to take effect retroactively, you should: This entry was posted on March 6, 2009 at am and is filed under Uncategorized.
The “novation” theory is distinct from the conflicting legal theory that views the first contract as having been rescinded and the “second” contract as a completely new contract requiring that it be dated as of the date the rewritten contract was signed.
However, the dealer appealed to the Appellate Court, arguing that the trial Court had waited too long to change its mind and was legally obligated to enter its initial decision in favor of the dealership.
ASFA’s single document rule provides that the total cost and terms of payment of a sale must be set forth in one document – the retail installment sale contract.
The Raceway plaintiffs contended that one would be required to resort to three documents – the first contract, the Acknowledgment of Rewritten Contract, and the second contract – to ascertain a sale’s total cost and terms of payment.
Ken Stern’s extensive experience handling vehicle fraud and lemon law claims furnish aggrieved vehicle owners with the resources, expertise, and experience to take on large auto retailer and vehicle manufacturers.
On December 15th, the California Supreme Court delivered its much-anticipated decision in the Raceway Ford Cases, holding that the practice of backdating second or subsequent contracts did not violate the Automobile Sales Finance Act (Cal. known as “ASFA”) and that the disclosure of inaccurate smog fees did not entitle buyers to the remedy of rescission under ASFA where the error was an accidental or bona fide error in computation.
In so doing, the Supreme Court specifically overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision in the 2010 case of , which held that the backdating of contracts violated ASFA because it resulted in an illegal finance charge, and also violated ASFA’s “single document rule.” Importantly, the Court also affirmed the large award of attorney’s fees to Raceway Ford on the backdating claims.
Crooked or misaligned mileage numbers on the odometer might be a sign of tampering.
The condition of the vehicle should be consistent with the indicated mileage.
Again, the Raceway plaintiffs relied on ’s reasoning, holding that the rule was not violated by the practice of backdating.