Court Opinion

ID: 9532826
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:25:09.591618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:51.014203
License: Public Domain

SLOAN, J.,
dissenting.
It is my view that the purchase of contracts is a form of lending money. The banks and plaintiff are engaged in the use of the same commodity for the same purpose: using money to gain interest. The stipulations of the parties that the plaintiff and national and state banks are in direct competition in purchasing contracts is a significant recognition that purchasing contracts, rather than loaning money on them, is purely a different means of doing the same thing. The mere fact that plaintiff’s business is couched in the term of “purchasing contracts” does not change the true character of what it is doing. In plain, simple fact it is loaning money. The majority’s interpretation is narrow and does not meet the reality of today’s banking and financial transactions. The distinctions made are of form and not of substance. I would follow the case of Crown Finance Corp. v. McColgan, 1943, 23 Cal2d 280, 144 P2d 331.
Moreover, the interpretation given the Oregon statute by the majority virtually compels a determination that the statute violates the Federal permissive act. We should not accord to the legislature such a purpose nor should we apply such a construction when the opposite is clearly within the meaning of the language used. The judgment should be reversed.
Warner and O’Connell, J. J., join in this dissent.