Jump to content

Which state the SOL applies?

Recommended Posts

A California Consumer Defense Attorney said that most credit card companies incorporated in Delaware for a reason:  This state doesn't have a cap limits for the interest rates charged on credit cards, so the credit card business is more profitable there.  However, Delaware has 3 years Statute of Limitations.  Often, the credit card Agreement has a "Choice of State Laws" provision, in which the credit card company would chose Delaware as the choice of state laws so that they can charge whatever interest rate they want. 


So, if a California consumer is sued by a credit card company that is incorporated in Delaware (Chase, BOA, Capital One, Discover, to name a few), the SOL should be 3 years instead of 4.


Any member here can confirm? If the above is true, what is CA case-law we can use?  I only know of a New York case law Portfolio Recovery v. King. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I used this case, too. Hambrecht & Quist Venture Partners v. American Med. Int'l, Inc., 38 Cal. 4th 1532, 46 CR2d 33, 38 C.A.4th 1532 (1995). http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4763613297294907471&q=hambrecht+%26+quist+venture+v+am+med&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47


'In light of the broad meaning of "law" and of its interpretation by the courts and the Restatement to include the statutes of limitations, we find that the August agreement incorporated Delaware's statutes of limitations. We therefore decline plaintiffs' invitation to read the choice-of-law provision as if it incorporated only the substantive law of Delaware, i.e., excluded Delaware procedural law. Although statutes of limitations may be viewed as procedural rather than substantive in some contexts, the choice-of-law clause in this case does not make a distinction along those lines. It simply incorporates the "laws" of Delaware without using any adjectives or other qualifiers. Moreover, even if the clause could be read to exclude Delaware procedural law, it does not follow that the statutes of limitations would be excluded.[7] In any event, we will not read into the agreement's unqualified language a restriction that the parties could easily have inserted but failed to include.[8]'

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.