natenat Posted April 26, 2005 Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 I live in FL and would like to know if and how this statement in a cardholder agreement can be used to help my case...GOVERNING LAW - This agreement and your account will be governed by and interpreted in accordance with federal law and, to the extent governed by state law, the laws of the State of Arizona, regardless of where you live or where you use the account. This agreement is entered into in Arizona and all credit under the agreement will be extended from Arizona.And from FL statutes...95.10 Cause of action arising in another state.--When the cause of action arose in another state or territory of the United States, or in a foreign country, and its laws forbid the maintenance of the action because of lapse of time, no action shall be maintained in this state. History.--s. 18, ch. 1869, 1872; RS 1295; GS 1726; RGS 2940; CGL 4664; s. 5, ch. 74-382.Could these statements taken together be construed to mean the Arizona SOL applies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methuss Posted April 26, 2005 Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that companies may "export" their usury laws to other States. This means your State can't regulate interest rates on cards issued by companies in another State.The section you list simply states that Florida will not aknowledge the Statute of Limitations from another State if it exceeds that of Florida. Since this is not usury, it's not covered by the USSC ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
natenat Posted April 26, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2005 Ok, thank you. So the FL statute does not apply. What about the governing law statement in the cardholder agreement? I've been searching the web on that and have found several cases where governing law was an issue. I don't really understand the language of them though. Here's part of one that involved Sears which is the company I'm dealing with. I don't really understand what this means though. What is substantive law?The "Governing Law" provisions of the original and amended credit card agreements designate Arizona law as the governing law where applicable. We find nothing in these provisions signifying an intention to apply anything other than the substantive law of Arizona to contract disputes. To interpret the choice-of-law provision here as referring to Arizona's conflict law "would introduce the uncertainties of choice of law into the proceedings and would serve to defeat the basic objectives, namely those of certainty and predictability, which the choice-of-law provision was designed to achieve." Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 187 cmt. h (1971). Arizona substantive law applies to the contract issues in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts