Washington Mutual Bank v. Superior Court

The primary theme of the paper is Washington Mutual Bank v. Superior Court in which you are required to emphasize its aspects in detail. The cost of the paper starts from $99 and it has been purchased and rated 4.9 points on the scale of 5 points by the students. To gain deeper insights into the paper and achieve fresh information, kindly contact our support.

Washington Mutual Bank v. Superior Court

INSTRUCTIONS:

*******8Change of plans. I would like to write about a breach of contract made in real estate. I`ve attached an outline of the paper. Please let me know if you have any questions. ******* The Final Research Paper should address a topic that is connected to the material and design of this course. This should require the essay to focus on a legal issue or situation that relates to a business environment or activity. Ideally, this topic would concern a matter that you have experienced or that you have knowledge; however, this not a requirement, only a suggestion. At a minimum this paper should include: A detailed description of the topic. An analytical discussion of the legal issues that are involved. This would entail examining the issue from different viewpoints. A discussion of ethical consideration (Remember: What is legal may not be ethical). A well defined and logically stated argument to support your position. This would include any suggestion or ideas for improvement in this area of law. Five research sources, in addition to your text. The paper also needs to meet the writing requirements that are set out below under “Writing the Final Research Paper." This is the final assignment for the course. It must be submitted to the instructor by 11:59 p.m. of the time zone in which you reside on the last day of the class. Late work will NOT be accepted unless arrangements are made with the Instructor. Writing the Research Paper The Research Paper: Must be eight- to ten- double-spaced pages in length (excluding the title page, reference page, exhibits, etc.) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in your approved APA style guide. Papers with more or less than the required length will have two points deducted from the final score for each page under or over. Must include a cover page: Title of paper Student`s name Course name and number Instructor`s name Date submitted Must include an introductory paragraph with a clearly stated thesis or topic. Must address the topic of the paper with critical thought. That is, what is your response to the content, either positive or negative, and then defend your position. If multiple options/alternatives/positions are present and are being rejected you must also defend the reasons for rejecting an option. Must conclude with a restatement of the thesis or topic and a closing paragraph that summarizes the main point or points of your paper. Must use APA style as outlined in your approved APA style guide to document all sources. Must include, on the final page, a Reference List that is completed according to APA style as outlined in your approved APA style guide.

CONTENT:

BUSINESS LAWName:Course:Professor Name:(January 31, 2012) OutlineIntroductionDiscussionConclusion Business LawWashington Mutual Bank v. Superior CourtBreach of Contract by the Washington Mutual BankIn most cases, a breach of contract takes place in circumstances whereby one party does not perform exactly and precisely his or her contract obligations. These cases have been recorded mostly in the real estate industry. This is because the majority of sellers normally wish to vacate the house they are selling hastily. Thesis Statement: The Washington Mutual Bank Victimized its Borrowers through Overcharging for Insurance Mortgage Substitution.The Washington Mutual Bank originated loans of home mortgages in Arizona, Texas, California and Colorado. It then bought loans from different lenders in the whole of America. The standard loan documents of the bank constituted a trust deed which required the mortgagor to keep hazard insurance on the secured property. It provided that in a case where the mortgagor did not do so, then the lender would do and pay whatever required protecting property value and the rights of the lenders in the property (Tonnon, 2005).Consequently, Jayne Briseno went to court to sue the bank for a breach of contract. The breach was as a result of the good faith covenant and fair dealing. Additionally, she felt that the mortgage transaction was an example of an unfair practice of violations in business under the unfair competition law of the state of California concerning unjust conversion and enrichment. On the basis of the second amended complaint, the bank had maintained the activity of procuring costly replacement insurance when mortgagors made a default on their loan obligation to keep relevant hazard insurance policies for their properties. The amount charged by the bank for compelled order insurance was typically higher than the premium amount on the initial lapsed policy would have been. The foundation of the dispute was if the bank victimized its borrowers through overcharging for the substitution of insurance coverage. Additionally, the bank had also profited secretly through cash commissions and in-kind services arising from the insurance replacement vendors. Briseno had moved to court for the certification of the case as a country-wide class action. It included approximately twenty five thousand mortgagors found within America. These mortgagors had been charged very high premiums for forced order insurance for a long time. This excluded those who had been refunded the whole premium. She provided an argument among many other things; California was capable of exercising jurisdiction constitutionally past the claims of non-resident mortgagors. Additionally, California was capable of applying its own rules unless the bank proved otherwise. This was provided well in the constitution (24 Cal. 4th 913). This was a case of conflict of laws and rules in the state of California. On the other hand, the bank responded by alleging tha...

Washington Mutual Bank v. Superior Court