Court Opinion

ID: 9625217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:32:08.558322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:03.537601
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Plaintiff appellee continues to dispute that more than 60% of the cash price (in this instance the sum of *193$1,600) has not been paid, by reason of its purchase money security interest in the consumer goods. Consequently, we go one step further in our computation to show clearly that more than 60% of the cash price of the purchase money security interest in the consumer goods has been paid. The principal amount of the loan equals the proceeds of the loan, $1,600, plus insurance premium, $31.92, plus loan fee of $30, for a sum of $1,661.92. The proceeds of the loan which is analogous to the cash purchase price is $1,600 and represents 96.27% of the principal amount of the loan. The stipulated principal remaining unpaid is $656.94. This figure contains pro rata amounts of the unpaid proceeds of the loan, insurance premium, and loan fee; 96.27% of $656.94 equals $632.44, or the proceeds of the loan which remains unpaid. The unpaid proceeds of the loan divided by the original proceeds of the loan, $1,600, shows us that 39.53% of the proceeds of the loan remain unpaid. Inversely, more than 60% of the proceeds of loan or analogous cash price has been paid.
It is suggested that our calculations result in an inconsistent treatment of transactions which are conducted under varying circumstances and that this conflicts with an intent that Code § 109A-9 — 505, supra, be applied uniformly to all transactions. We reply that when the mathematical calculations are properly made the result is consistent. Compare $656.94 divided by $1,661.92 relied upon in our original decision with $632.44 divided by $1,600 as utilized for demonstration purposes in this addendum.

Motion for rehearing denied.