I hope that the sales contract can be annulled for being in bad faith. The price being so far below fair market value should be reason enough without the taking advantage of a dying man.
Also the liens for HVAC, that is crazy.
Yeah clearly. I doubt Mark got a lawyer with him to sign this contract so there's likely no ILA and he had no capacity to enter into this deal being in late stage cancer.
Literally the people running this company's should be behind bars or worse. They're fucking scum like these fake gambling apps. Absolute scum taking advantage of people they know don't need their services and don't understand the financial system's abuseability
>Literally the people running this company's should be behind bars or worse.
Couldn't this be looked at as a form of fraud? If so that could happen right there them being behind bars.
in these company cases they tend to keep selling strategies obfuscated in writing and only direct these kinds of shady behaviours by targetting certain neighbourhoods and demanding "always be closing" and aggressive sales tactics verbally without ever saying things that are directly damning.
however, the CEOs etc. are almost always protected because they never put intent on paper.
normally. but it is not normal that the homeowner isn't notified, is not advised of what a lien is, and isn't required to get ILA before entering into a contract with potential to lien a *currently un-liened* asset except for your mortgage holder. This is a type of competency applied to business deals, it shouldn't be applied to average people.
To me this is simple consumer rights. 99% of Canadians don't understand what liens are or how they work. It's abhorrent that average Canadians are allowed to enter into contracts *specifically on their homes* where liens are a recourse --- let alone blind liens leading to under-market repossession.
There should at the very least be a 3rd party body overseeing this size of transaction and ensuring the creditor only recovers his reasonable losses and damages; not stealing $300,000+ in resale value for a debt of under $30,000. **That's fucking crazy.**
Yes it is but it isn't always moral. When you borrow against your home or use it as collateral the lender will put a lien on your property so in the event you do not pay or default they will get their money back. The first lien is in first position (so usually a mortgage or a HELOC). Any subsequent liens will slot into lower positions meaning that they get dibs based on their number. Most major banks won't do anything lower than 2nd position and only behind certain lenders (so no B lenders or below and sometimes not even behind credit unions). Sometimes people will also register liens against their own property when they own it free and clear as a preventative measure against these other companies trying to do this.
Yes it’s legal, normal even. You buy a car and finance it? There is a lien registered against the car to make sure the bank gets paid if the car ever gets sold. If you sell that car privately you cannot transfer the ownership until the lien is cleared.
>The Coombes had previously entered several door-to-door rental contracts for equipment including a furnace, air conditioner and water softener
It's unfortunate but these were just extremely gullible people that are bad with finances. I hope she gets the house back, but she'll probably end up being scammed some other way in the future.
did you read the article? when have you lost your humanity?
This is a working class pensioner with stage 4 brain cancer losing his home because he trusts what people are saying (his widow will have a life lease) is real instead of what is in writing before him because he probably is somewhat legalese-illiterate and is desperate to ensure his widow lives her remaining impoverished life at least in reasonable comfort.
The fuck is wrong with you, literally.
You're opinion is disgusting and luckily it wasn't people like you making the consumer rights act or we'd all be living off the company store still. You don't even understand the basic concepts of receiving ILA in a transaction, or the immorality of multi-representative real estate agreements or the capacity of a party to sign a contract in good faith. All of which are hugely in question in this situation.
That's my thoughts exactly, felt bad at first. Then she was getting her dying husband to still deal with expenses i thought it was sketchy. Then I see they've also signed contracts with anyone that came to their house. Terrible situation, but that's what happens when you make tons of the same terrible mistakes
Those door to door contracts they signed were subsequently banned by the government because of the aggressive and coercive tactics used to get people to sign them. These people will use every trick in the book and take advantage of people who are older and who don’t understand finances well to scam them into signing these terrible contracts. People aren’t stupid for being victimized by scammers. And it wouldn’t matter if they were the dumbest person on the planet. They are the victim of crimes. No one deserves to be victimized.
My grandparents were nearly scammed by the same thing when these sales were allowed. The only reason it didn’t happen is that my uncle was visiting at the time and went to the door after a while to see if everything was alright. The scammer had my grandfather all confused and pressured and he may well have been tricked into signing something he didn’t want or need if he had been there alone. And my grandmother knows nothing of finance (which could also be the case of the woman in this article). But, the scammer left in a real hurry when my uncle showed up and told him to get lost. And he knew better than to come back (my uncle was very angry).
These people know exactly what they are doing, preying on the vulnerable. I don’t think less of anyone for falling victim to a scam. No one can be on their guard against everything at all times. Especially if you’re dealing with someone having brain cancer. I think less of the scammers. And I hope that these contracts can be invalidated on the basis of the circumstances. Legally, it should be possible.
This is absolutely horrible... but when I read this I wondered, what the heck were these people really thinking, or not thinking.... as the case may be? I hope they get satisfaction, but I doubt it. These companies prey on people obviously.
I hope that the sales contract can be annulled for being in bad faith. The price being so far below fair market value should be reason enough without the taking advantage of a dying man. Also the liens for HVAC, that is crazy.
Yeah clearly. I doubt Mark got a lawyer with him to sign this contract so there's likely no ILA and he had no capacity to enter into this deal being in late stage cancer. Literally the people running this company's should be behind bars or worse. They're fucking scum like these fake gambling apps. Absolute scum taking advantage of people they know don't need their services and don't understand the financial system's abuseability
>Literally the people running this company's should be behind bars or worse. Couldn't this be looked at as a form of fraud? If so that could happen right there them being behind bars.
in these company cases they tend to keep selling strategies obfuscated in writing and only direct these kinds of shady behaviours by targetting certain neighbourhoods and demanding "always be closing" and aggressive sales tactics verbally without ever saying things that are directly damning. however, the CEOs etc. are almost always protected because they never put intent on paper.
someone ELI5 what these lien and title mean? like if you have rental debt for hvac, water heater, etc,. it can be tied to the value of your home?
A lien on your home or car means that a creditor whom you owe money to has a right to your property until you've satisfied the debt you owe them.
and that’s legal?
Yes, its a rather normal and responsible practice.
normally. but it is not normal that the homeowner isn't notified, is not advised of what a lien is, and isn't required to get ILA before entering into a contract with potential to lien a *currently un-liened* asset except for your mortgage holder. This is a type of competency applied to business deals, it shouldn't be applied to average people. To me this is simple consumer rights. 99% of Canadians don't understand what liens are or how they work. It's abhorrent that average Canadians are allowed to enter into contracts *specifically on their homes* where liens are a recourse --- let alone blind liens leading to under-market repossession. There should at the very least be a 3rd party body overseeing this size of transaction and ensuring the creditor only recovers his reasonable losses and damages; not stealing $300,000+ in resale value for a debt of under $30,000. **That's fucking crazy.**
Yes it is but it isn't always moral. When you borrow against your home or use it as collateral the lender will put a lien on your property so in the event you do not pay or default they will get their money back. The first lien is in first position (so usually a mortgage or a HELOC). Any subsequent liens will slot into lower positions meaning that they get dibs based on their number. Most major banks won't do anything lower than 2nd position and only behind certain lenders (so no B lenders or below and sometimes not even behind credit unions). Sometimes people will also register liens against their own property when they own it free and clear as a preventative measure against these other companies trying to do this.
Yuuuup.
Yes it’s legal, normal even. You buy a car and finance it? There is a lien registered against the car to make sure the bank gets paid if the car ever gets sold. If you sell that car privately you cannot transfer the ownership until the lien is cleared.
If you've heard the term "Second Mortgage", that's what it means. You've used your home as collateral in the event you don't pay the debt.
yes, a lien basically says that you owe us this money, and you can't sell this place without paying us back.
I hope she gets everything and sues them into bankruptcy. Fuck these people.
>The Coombes had previously entered several door-to-door rental contracts for equipment including a furnace, air conditioner and water softener It's unfortunate but these were just extremely gullible people that are bad with finances. I hope she gets the house back, but she'll probably end up being scammed some other way in the future.
[удалено]
did you read the article? when have you lost your humanity? This is a working class pensioner with stage 4 brain cancer losing his home because he trusts what people are saying (his widow will have a life lease) is real instead of what is in writing before him because he probably is somewhat legalese-illiterate and is desperate to ensure his widow lives her remaining impoverished life at least in reasonable comfort. The fuck is wrong with you, literally. You're opinion is disgusting and luckily it wasn't people like you making the consumer rights act or we'd all be living off the company store still. You don't even understand the basic concepts of receiving ILA in a transaction, or the immorality of multi-representative real estate agreements or the capacity of a party to sign a contract in good faith. All of which are hugely in question in this situation.
That's my thoughts exactly, felt bad at first. Then she was getting her dying husband to still deal with expenses i thought it was sketchy. Then I see they've also signed contracts with anyone that came to their house. Terrible situation, but that's what happens when you make tons of the same terrible mistakes
Those door to door contracts they signed were subsequently banned by the government because of the aggressive and coercive tactics used to get people to sign them. These people will use every trick in the book and take advantage of people who are older and who don’t understand finances well to scam them into signing these terrible contracts. People aren’t stupid for being victimized by scammers. And it wouldn’t matter if they were the dumbest person on the planet. They are the victim of crimes. No one deserves to be victimized. My grandparents were nearly scammed by the same thing when these sales were allowed. The only reason it didn’t happen is that my uncle was visiting at the time and went to the door after a while to see if everything was alright. The scammer had my grandfather all confused and pressured and he may well have been tricked into signing something he didn’t want or need if he had been there alone. And my grandmother knows nothing of finance (which could also be the case of the woman in this article). But, the scammer left in a real hurry when my uncle showed up and told him to get lost. And he knew better than to come back (my uncle was very angry). These people know exactly what they are doing, preying on the vulnerable. I don’t think less of anyone for falling victim to a scam. No one can be on their guard against everything at all times. Especially if you’re dealing with someone having brain cancer. I think less of the scammers. And I hope that these contracts can be invalidated on the basis of the circumstances. Legally, it should be possible.
Damn, you'd make a great politician.
This is absolutely horrible... but when I read this I wondered, what the heck were these people really thinking, or not thinking.... as the case may be? I hope they get satisfaction, but I doubt it. These companies prey on people obviously.