Active Users:1114 Time:23/11/2024 08:25:04 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 1374 Views
Just as a contract is a two way street - SilverWarder - 12/10/2010 05:12:09 PM 875 Views
do we have a moral obligation to society? random thoughts - 12/10/2010 06:00:17 PM 868 Views
It's a good question SilverWarder - 14/10/2010 02:41:21 AM 782 Views
Sort of have to disagree... Antigone - 13/10/2010 02:52:07 AM 818 Views
That's not true actually SilverWarder - 14/10/2010 02:35:43 AM 767 Views
Of course it's immoral. Sareitha Sedai - 12/10/2010 05:13:16 PM 844 Views
But does one sided morality work? random thoughts - 12/10/2010 05:38:56 PM 964 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 767 Views
A company or organization cannot act morally or immorally? I strongly disagree. *NM* Legolas - 12/10/2010 07:50:42 PM 388 Views
No, it cannot. However the individuals making the decisions for the company can. *NM* Cannoli - 12/10/2010 08:48:23 PM 330 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 836 Views
I'm not absolved of my obligations based on the bad behaviors of others. Sareitha Sedai - 12/10/2010 08:25:33 PM 745 Views
but who you owe obligations to is a factor random thoughts - 12/10/2010 09:03:04 PM 797 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 932 Views
you also use reason and logic to decide where your loyalty rest random thoughts - 12/10/2010 09:16:51 PM 826 Views
You have not explained how it IS the banks' fault Cannoli - 15/10/2010 01:30:10 PM 861 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 789 Views
nothing wrong with me but I think you are off your meds again random thoughts - 12/10/2010 09:34:33 PM 785 Views
Re: nothing wrong with me but I think you are off your meds again Cannoli - 15/10/2010 02:50:49 PM 1282 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 986 Views
A contract isn't a promise; it's a legal agreement. *NM* Ghavrel - 12/10/2010 06:25:24 PM 407 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 823 Views
I would agree with you if contracts didn't provide for breaking them. Ghavrel - 12/10/2010 07:33:15 PM 680 Views
Hrm. Sareitha Sedai - 12/10/2010 07:35:38 PM 889 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 396 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 410 Views
if there is no oath of fidelity then straying would not be immoral *NM* random thoughts - 12/10/2010 08:40:53 PM 383 Views
It's not immoral to break the marriage contract. Ghavrel - 12/10/2010 08:19:50 PM 948 Views
I don't see that as the flaw in my logic. Sareitha Sedai - 12/10/2010 08:37:52 PM 845 Views
Re: I don't see that as the flaw in my logic. Ghavrel - 12/10/2010 09:00:00 PM 940 Views
also random thoughts - 12/10/2010 09:37:38 PM 793 Views
That makes no sense whatsoever. Tim - 13/10/2010 11:38:06 PM 914 Views
That must be why they have you sign something called an agreementory note *NM* Sareitha Sedai - 12/10/2010 07:33:32 PM 407 Views
Exactly *NM* Cannoli - 12/10/2010 07:58:25 PM 390 Views
So, you think bankruptcy laws are immoral? everynametaken - 13/10/2010 12:18:43 AM 831 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 918 Views
I thought the answer might be something like that. *NM* Rebekah - 12/10/2010 05:35:35 PM 375 Views
that is close to the way I see it random thoughts - 12/10/2010 05:45:25 PM 775 Views
It's both legal and immoral. LiterateDog - 12/10/2010 06:37:49 PM 858 Views
You didn't mention the third party Roland00 - 12/10/2010 08:26:56 PM 704 Views
in a way I did since I did mention society random thoughts - 12/10/2010 08:54:07 PM 850 Views
Thus the edit Roland00 - 12/10/2010 09:10:53 PM 876 Views
either way I think you made a good point *NM* random thoughts - 12/10/2010 09:38:58 PM 374 Views
will those neighbors... damookster - 14/10/2010 04:52:26 AM 980 Views
All depends where you get your morals from, really. Nebhead - 12/10/2010 08:28:41 PM 836 Views
I guess what i was trying to ask, at least in part random thoughts - 12/10/2010 09:48:24 PM 803 Views
What if you look at it from the other perspective? Sareitha Sedai - 12/10/2010 09:00:20 PM 855 Views
do you think they would if they had a legal way to do it? random thoughts - 12/10/2010 10:04:57 PM 830 Views
Good point. *NM* Tashmere - 12/10/2010 11:10:26 PM 391 Views
Sure, you could do that. Aeryn - 13/10/2010 01:54:55 AM 858 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 740 Views
Much like the concept of morality itself. Gaps - 12/10/2010 11:47:23 PM 772 Views
I find this line particularly interesting. everynametaken - 13/10/2010 12:13:18 AM 792 Views
Dunno. nossy - 13/10/2010 12:56:56 AM 899 Views
As a professional in financial services - no, it is not. Aeryn - 13/10/2010 01:44:18 AM 807 Views
but almost nobody sees it that way random thoughts - 13/10/2010 12:53:25 PM 808 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 800 Views
yes but the bank has a limited ability to collect random thoughts - 13/10/2010 02:47:34 PM 714 Views
I think it's morally wrong to walk away from credit card debt. *NM* Aeryn - 13/10/2010 09:43:11 PM 382 Views
I'm curious how you reconcile that Sareitha Sedai - 13/10/2010 09:47:59 PM 829 Views
Collateral Aeryn - 19/10/2010 07:21:14 PM 1327 Views
I agree, what do you think is different? random thoughts - 13/10/2010 09:59:36 PM 833 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 365 Views
I too am unable to work out what distinguishes the two situations. Tim - 13/10/2010 11:54:15 PM 763 Views
I lost sleep over it, but I did it anyway. John - 13/10/2010 05:24:19 AM 893 Views
OK what if you take it a step further random thoughts - 13/10/2010 03:44:30 PM 846 Views
Good question John - 14/10/2010 05:13:41 AM 864 Views
I have some questions about this issue. MightyYT - 13/10/2010 08:14:37 AM 817 Views
how do those questions affect the morality of the situation? random thoughts - 13/10/2010 03:20:14 PM 775 Views
Obviously, the essential difference is can't pay versus won't pay. Elaine - 13/10/2010 02:16:07 PM 780 Views
are you socializing your debt when it is a private bank? random thoughts - 13/10/2010 03:14:48 PM 833 Views
You are when said bank requires a bailout. And very many of them do. Elaine - 13/10/2010 03:22:59 PM 794 Views
it is the home fault that the banks have to be bailed out random thoughts - 13/10/2010 03:49:37 PM 855 Views
I believe it immoral to do harm. Macharius - 13/10/2010 04:38:28 PM 868 Views
I really don't understand a system where this could be an advantage. Tim - 13/10/2010 11:16:57 PM 812 Views
There's generally something like a 7 or 10 year limit on credit reporting here. LiterateDog - 13/10/2010 11:46:58 PM 828 Views
What's the use of suing someone who has no money? *NM* Tim - 13/10/2010 11:48:47 PM 440 Views
You can garnish their wages. LiterateDog - 13/10/2010 11:49:36 PM 790 Views
With parsley? Rebekah - 13/10/2010 11:51:37 PM 878 Views
No, "someone" most certainly did not, wicked young Miss! Hmph! *NM* LiterateDog - 13/10/2010 11:52:40 PM 432 Views
If they suddenly come into some, you're entitled to it. *NM* TaskmasterJack - 14/10/2010 12:07:34 AM 507 Views
Bit of a long shot. *NM* Tim - 14/10/2010 12:09:12 AM 357 Views
Very. Best to cover your bases though. *NM* TaskmasterJack - 14/10/2010 10:04:25 PM 378 Views
Not if the doctrine of election applies. Tim - 14/10/2010 10:14:07 PM 776 Views
Are we not talking about credit companies going after people who owe them money? TaskmasterJack - 14/10/2010 10:18:47 PM 821 Views
Yeah, I guess we are. Tim - 14/10/2010 10:28:40 PM 859 Views
Re: Gaps - 14/10/2010 03:09:18 AM 809 Views
I am currently in that situation... damookster - 14/10/2010 05:03:23 AM 906 Views
In Washington you can contest the assessed value used to determine property taxes. Vodalus - 14/10/2010 07:27:02 AM 856 Views
Re: I am currently in that situation... Macharius - 14/10/2010 05:49:24 PM 1146 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 379 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 833 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes