|
In every contract there is a necessity for the borrower to protect the sellers asset which is vulnerable to damage or destruction by the borrower. Lending institutions may allow the "property" to be uninsured if the borrower has suffecient assets to cause the borrower to loan funds without collateral based on the credit history of the borrower.
Obviously the borrower in this case has the right to require his asset to be protected by insurance. In this case the insurance would be "full coverage" including collision and comprehensive in the case where the borrower casues destruction of the collateral.
Why would a private contract be any different than a contract between any other lender and borrower.
I think S Keith (post 37) has got it correct and would be exactly what I would state to the judge. If the borrower breached the contract, even a single stipulation and even if all but the last payment was made, then the contract is voided and the property reverts back to the seller.
mcrews has been very vocal in his position and since this is rare for him on this forum, I would like to read his response to my post. These legal situations may vary from state to state but the basic contract law precedes the existence of the United States.
regards
mech
|