Active Users:292 Time:21/09/2024 04:58:35 AM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
Not if the doctrine of election applies. Tim Send a noteboard - 14/10/2010 10:14:07 PM
Basically, this means that you get to sue one of two (or more) parties but not both. Once you've made your choice, you have to stick with it, and if it turns out the one you chose to sue is broke, tough luck.

I don't know if that doctrine would apply in the situation we're discussing; I'm just pointing out that it's not always a good idea to cover your bases. Even aside from the extra legal expenses involved in suing more than once.
Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt.

—Nous disons en allemand : le guerre, le mort, le lune, alors que 'soleil' et 'amour' sont du sexe féminin : la soleil, la amour. La vie est neutre.

—La vie ? Neutre ? C'est très joli, et surtout très logique.
Reply to message
Is walking away from a mortgage immoral? random thoughts - 12/10/2010 04:45:43 PM 1361 Views
Just as a contract is a two way street - SilverWarder - 12/10/2010 05:12:09 PM 859 Views
do we have a moral obligation to society? random thoughts - 12/10/2010 06:00:17 PM 853 Views
It's a good question SilverWarder - 14/10/2010 02:41:21 AM 769 Views
Sort of have to disagree... Antigone - 13/10/2010 02:52:07 AM 803 Views
That's not true actually SilverWarder - 14/10/2010 02:35:43 AM 755 Views
Of course it's immoral. Sareitha Sedai - 12/10/2010 05:13:16 PM 827 Views
But does one sided morality work? random thoughts - 12/10/2010 05:38:56 PM 943 Views
You asked about the morality of walking away when the borrower still has the ability to pay. Sareitha Sedai - 12/10/2010 07:31:10 PM 750 Views
A company or organization cannot act morally or immorally? I strongly disagree. *NM* Legolas - 12/10/2010 07:50:42 PM 380 Views
No, it cannot. However the individuals making the decisions for the company can. *NM* Cannoli - 12/10/2010 08:48:23 PM 324 Views
If banks can not behave in moral manner why should people be expected to behave in moral manner? random thoughts - 12/10/2010 08:07:56 PM 826 Views
I'm not absolved of my obligations based on the bad behaviors of others. Sareitha Sedai - 12/10/2010 08:25:33 PM 725 Views
but who you owe obligations to is a factor random thoughts - 12/10/2010 09:03:04 PM 788 Views
Because it's their moral obligation. Morality is not a trade, you act morally because it is right Cannoli - 12/10/2010 08:47:41 PM 914 Views
you also use reason and logic to decide where your loyalty rest random thoughts - 12/10/2010 09:16:51 PM 815 Views
You have not explained how it IS the banks' fault Cannoli - 15/10/2010 01:30:10 PM 846 Views
That's the only kind of morality there is! What the hell is wrong with you? Cannoli - 12/10/2010 08:15:55 PM 774 Views
nothing wrong with me but I think you are off your meds again random thoughts - 12/10/2010 09:34:33 PM 770 Views
Re: nothing wrong with me but I think you are off your meds again Cannoli - 15/10/2010 02:50:49 PM 1270 Views
well I really can't argue with the wrong is wrong end of story belief system random thoughts - 15/10/2010 05:40:22 PM 971 Views
A contract isn't a promise; it's a legal agreement. *NM* Ghavrel - 12/10/2010 06:25:24 PM 402 Views
Which is why contracts have to be pages and pages long and combed over by bloodsucking lawyers. LiterateDog - 12/10/2010 06:39:18 PM 808 Views
I would agree with you if contracts didn't provide for breaking them. Ghavrel - 12/10/2010 07:33:15 PM 668 Views
Hrm. Sareitha Sedai - 12/10/2010 07:35:38 PM 873 Views
did you take a personal oath in front of god and your loved ones to pay the loan back? *NM* random thoughts - 12/10/2010 08:09:07 PM 390 Views
Let's assume we're talking about a marriage where no such oath was taken... *NM* Sareitha Sedai - 12/10/2010 08:10:54 PM 404 Views
if there is no oath of fidelity then straying would not be immoral *NM* random thoughts - 12/10/2010 08:40:53 PM 375 Views
It's not immoral to break the marriage contract. Ghavrel - 12/10/2010 08:19:50 PM 931 Views
I don't see that as the flaw in my logic. Sareitha Sedai - 12/10/2010 08:37:52 PM 830 Views
Re: I don't see that as the flaw in my logic. Ghavrel - 12/10/2010 09:00:00 PM 923 Views
also random thoughts - 12/10/2010 09:37:38 PM 775 Views
That makes no sense whatsoever. Tim - 13/10/2010 11:38:06 PM 900 Views
That must be why they have you sign something called an agreementory note *NM* Sareitha Sedai - 12/10/2010 07:33:32 PM 403 Views
Exactly *NM* Cannoli - 12/10/2010 07:58:25 PM 382 Views
So, you think bankruptcy laws are immoral? everynametaken - 13/10/2010 12:18:43 AM 820 Views
I don't think it's immoral at all. The contract usually specifies penalties for breach. Tom - 12/10/2010 05:28:34 PM 905 Views
I thought the answer might be something like that. *NM* Rebekah - 12/10/2010 05:35:35 PM 369 Views
that is close to the way I see it random thoughts - 12/10/2010 05:45:25 PM 760 Views
It's both legal and immoral. LiterateDog - 12/10/2010 06:37:49 PM 844 Views
You didn't mention the third party Roland00 - 12/10/2010 08:26:56 PM 693 Views
in a way I did since I did mention society random thoughts - 12/10/2010 08:54:07 PM 836 Views
Thus the edit Roland00 - 12/10/2010 09:10:53 PM 862 Views
either way I think you made a good point *NM* random thoughts - 12/10/2010 09:38:58 PM 366 Views
will those neighbors... damookster - 14/10/2010 04:52:26 AM 968 Views
All depends where you get your morals from, really. Nebhead - 12/10/2010 08:28:41 PM 824 Views
I guess what i was trying to ask, at least in part random thoughts - 12/10/2010 09:48:24 PM 791 Views
What if you look at it from the other perspective? Sareitha Sedai - 12/10/2010 09:00:20 PM 842 Views
do you think they would if they had a legal way to do it? random thoughts - 12/10/2010 10:04:57 PM 817 Views
Good point. *NM* Tashmere - 12/10/2010 11:10:26 PM 386 Views
Sure, you could do that. Aeryn - 13/10/2010 01:54:55 AM 843 Views
The problem is that you're buying something today and paying for it for the next 15/30/50 years. Sareitha Sedai - 13/10/2010 03:04:26 PM 727 Views
Much like the concept of morality itself. Gaps - 12/10/2010 11:47:23 PM 761 Views
I find this line particularly interesting. everynametaken - 13/10/2010 12:13:18 AM 779 Views
Dunno. nossy - 13/10/2010 12:56:56 AM 883 Views
As a professional in financial services - no, it is not. Aeryn - 13/10/2010 01:44:18 AM 790 Views
but almost nobody sees it that way random thoughts - 13/10/2010 12:53:25 PM 797 Views
Is the deal that if you default, the bank gets the house and nothing else, though? Legolas - 13/10/2010 02:40:48 PM 784 Views
yes but the bank has a limited ability to collect random thoughts - 13/10/2010 02:47:34 PM 700 Views
I think it's morally wrong to walk away from credit card debt. *NM* Aeryn - 13/10/2010 09:43:11 PM 375 Views
I'm curious how you reconcile that Sareitha Sedai - 13/10/2010 09:47:59 PM 815 Views
Collateral Aeryn - 19/10/2010 07:21:14 PM 1309 Views
I agree, what do you think is different? random thoughts - 13/10/2010 09:59:36 PM 815 Views
The difference is that the bank owns the house. Whereas when I buy stuff, it's mine. *NM* Aeryn - 19/10/2010 07:05:34 PM 361 Views
I too am unable to work out what distinguishes the two situations. Tim - 13/10/2010 11:54:15 PM 745 Views
I lost sleep over it, but I did it anyway. John - 13/10/2010 05:24:19 AM 879 Views
OK what if you take it a step further random thoughts - 13/10/2010 03:44:30 PM 826 Views
Good question John - 14/10/2010 05:13:41 AM 847 Views
I have some questions about this issue. MightyYT - 13/10/2010 08:14:37 AM 804 Views
how do those questions affect the morality of the situation? random thoughts - 13/10/2010 03:20:14 PM 760 Views
Obviously, the essential difference is can't pay versus won't pay. Elaine - 13/10/2010 02:16:07 PM 765 Views
are you socializing your debt when it is a private bank? random thoughts - 13/10/2010 03:14:48 PM 818 Views
You are when said bank requires a bailout. And very many of them do. Elaine - 13/10/2010 03:22:59 PM 774 Views
it is the home fault that the banks have to be bailed out random thoughts - 13/10/2010 03:49:37 PM 835 Views
I believe it immoral to do harm. Macharius - 13/10/2010 04:38:28 PM 855 Views
I really don't understand a system where this could be an advantage. Tim - 13/10/2010 11:16:57 PM 793 Views
There's generally something like a 7 or 10 year limit on credit reporting here. LiterateDog - 13/10/2010 11:46:58 PM 813 Views
What's the use of suing someone who has no money? *NM* Tim - 13/10/2010 11:48:47 PM 434 Views
You can garnish their wages. LiterateDog - 13/10/2010 11:49:36 PM 773 Views
With parsley? Rebekah - 13/10/2010 11:51:37 PM 859 Views
No, "someone" most certainly did not, wicked young Miss! Hmph! *NM* LiterateDog - 13/10/2010 11:52:40 PM 425 Views
If they suddenly come into some, you're entitled to it. *NM* TaskmasterJack - 14/10/2010 12:07:34 AM 501 Views
Bit of a long shot. *NM* Tim - 14/10/2010 12:09:12 AM 351 Views
Very. Best to cover your bases though. *NM* TaskmasterJack - 14/10/2010 10:04:25 PM 370 Views
Not if the doctrine of election applies. Tim - 14/10/2010 10:14:07 PM 762 Views
Are we not talking about credit companies going after people who owe them money? TaskmasterJack - 14/10/2010 10:18:47 PM 806 Views
Yeah, I guess we are. Tim - 14/10/2010 10:28:40 PM 845 Views
Re: Gaps - 14/10/2010 03:09:18 AM 794 Views
I am currently in that situation... damookster - 14/10/2010 05:03:23 AM 888 Views
In Washington you can contest the assessed value used to determine property taxes. Vodalus - 14/10/2010 07:27:02 AM 841 Views
Re: I am currently in that situation... Macharius - 14/10/2010 05:49:24 PM 1133 Views
it is easy for me and others to be glib when it is just a theory *NM* random thoughts - 14/10/2010 08:19:16 PM 375 Views
If you have the ability to pay, I would consider it yet another immoral act in an immoral industry. Joel - 14/10/2010 07:49:38 AM 816 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes