[mcrews]

here is my point.
ALL cases preset a limited fact pattern.
YOu have to work with the facts presented by the presenter.

So, for example, suggesting that (FACT) payments are a (LIE) gift (as one poster suggested) is ... [admin edit].

Next, to OVERSTATE what exists is also concerning....
"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"
That MAY NOT be a feature of this contract AS PRESENTED IN THE FACT PATTERN.
A contract is simply the exchange of value without force or coercion.

Maybe there are more facts, but as presented, it states that HE was providing the insurance, then wanted to change that.

The FACT PATTERN does not stipulate that SHE had to have insurance when she made the first payment. He stated he had received several payments prior to the insurance issue arising. In fact he states HE covered her/the vehicle in the beginning.
He then changed the contract by 'requiring' her to carry the insurance. He didn't offer any different terms so he was forcing a concession on her.

It doesn't matter what is happening outside the contract.

The bigger lesson here is that words have meanings.

With all this said, the entire point of Law school and the practice of law is that you can take the limited fact pattern/case that is presented and defend either side.