What test is used by the court in Christine Seney v. Rent-A- Center Inc. to determine if the transaction is actually a sale?

           The case of Christine Seney v. Rent-A- Center Inc. is about the lease and sales of a vehicle. In the case, the court collected important information about the case and used a test to determine if the transaction is actually a sale. After collecting information and using test the final decision of the court was against the claimer who claimed for the sales transaction. Court decided that lease and sales are not equivalent on the economic scale. To determine this court used a test which covered two main points. The two main points are presented below:

In negotiation, leasee should draw a contract with the seller regarding upfront payment at least equivalent to the amount that would be paid by the purchaser along with the amount of interest.

While taking possession of “to be sold” item lease should draw contract of the payment schedule.     

             The test used in this court was quite simple as the court only made verification about the lease payment schedule and paid the amount equivalent to the purchase price plus interest amount. On the basis of this test results and outcomes court decided that sales are not qualifying as it relates to leasing only which does not have an equivalent economic status of a sale. The intent true of Christine Seney v. Rent-A- Center Inc. case also indicates that contracts drawn between both parties were related to the lease of the item rather than sale. Furthermore, no clear payment schedule was decided between both parties therefore, the final decision was confusing for both parties.

What test is used by the court in Bill Parrot v. Daimler Chrysler Corporation to determine if the transaction is actually a sale? Explain and Discuss.   

            In Bill Parrot v. Daimler Chrysler Corporation case court decided that deal is not a qualifying sale. The case of Bill Parrot v. Daimler Chrysler Corporation is about the transfer of owner between the retailer and vehicle owner. The decision made for the Bill Parrot v. Daimler Chrysler Corporation is quite different from the decision of a similar case Christine Seney v. Rent-A- Center Inc. case. The prime difference between these decisions is not caused by the contradiction of cases but in fact because of the process or method utilized in decision making. In the case of Bill Parrot v. Daimler Chrysler Corporation court used a different test to determine whether the sale can be distinguished as a qualifying sale or not? The key consideration in the decision making the process by the court can be distinguished as to whether transaction entertained the resale possibility in any stage or not? Furthermore, the court mainly focused on two things while making the decision. The two points are enlisted below:

1.The true intent of each contract

2.While party held title

               In the first stage of the transaction, the title has remained with buyers. While on the other hand in the second stage true intent was required to be transferred to the car temporarily. The purpose of this transfer was to make it confirm that the vehicle would be returned for eventual resale to the retailer. The court used this information as a test outcome to take the decision about the sale of a vehicle and its qualifying sales. 

Question: 2                                                         

As we have seen several times, stare decisis is at the central core of the authority of the judicial branch. How does this case contradict that description of core authority? Explain and discuss.

              Stare decisis is known as the central core of the authority of the judicial branch. The main idea behind stare decisis is that cases should be decided alike. Following this concept, judges should collect information about similar cases before deciding on a particular case. In this system, judges are given limited authority to decide by themselves based on their studies and knowledge. In general, judges are required to follow up on the decisions and experiences of the judicial branch. As a Latin term “stare decisis” means standing by the something which is already decided.

             Stare decisis is also considered as a legal principle which determines the point in litigation according to precedent. Somehow, this case contradicts the description of core authority. In the case of Parrot references in his defense: Peterson v. Volkswagen of America Inc. and Cohen v. AM General Corp are quite different cases. Similarly, cases of Bill Parrot v. Daimler Chrysler Corporation and Christine Seney v. Rent-A- Center Inc. also contradicts to this statement. In the case of Bill Parrot v. Daimler Chrysler Corporation case court decided the matter based on different test and concluded the disqualification of sales. While on the other hand, a relatively similar case was decided with the use of a different test rather than using the same test for both cases.

            Furthermore, in the Cohen v. AM General Corp case court decided in favor of car lease. Court claimed that the main purpose behind the transaction was to lease the vehicle. Therefore, it cannot be considered as a resale related transaction. The decision made by the court, in this case, is quite different from the decision made by the judges in a similar case e.g. case of Peterson v. Volkswagen of America Inc. In the case of Peterson v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. judges collected information about the case and claimed that if lessor intends to purchase a vehicle while leasing the vehicle then the lease would be protected by MMWA. The lease would be considered as category three consumer in MMWA protection. In both cases, conflict was raised because of lease and sales qualifying. Situations were almost the same excluding the intent of lease but rather than following the previous case decision court took a new decision.

            In the case of Cohen and Peterson purpose was vehicle purchase to be for leasing can be considered as inapposite. Thus, in the light of these examples, it can be said that the core concept of authority regarding stare decisis is not followed by the judges in these cases. Judges preferred to use their authority to take a new decision according to their knowledge and analysis. Judge's power and authority of taking decisions regarding some particular cases in accordance with the situation and core analysis can benefit the law system of a society. However, complete freedom and full power of judges to decide matter under their own opinion and perceptions is also not acceptable because of the high chances of corruption and personal biases.