Legal Opinion · Dissent

Brannon v. Boatmen's National Bank

Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided December 1, 1998No. 89,761Published

1DissentRapp, J.

¶ 1 I dissent. I am required to state, as a prelude to my analysis, that, in my view, the majority fails to consider and give effect to the parties’ written contract and to the consumer protection that the Uniform Consumer Credit Code (“UCCC”) was designed *1081to provide. The effect of the majority in discussing what is permissible under the UCCC is to condone what the Bank actually did in total disregard of its contract. The real issues here are twofold. First, is the Bank required to conform to its contract which, on close reading, does not authorize the Bank’s purchase and charge back to…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Max True Plastering Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1996
  2. Indiana National Bank v. State Department of Human ServicesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1994
  3. Brown v. Founders Bank and Trust Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1994
  4. Wilson v. Travelers Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1980
  5. Dismuke v. CsehSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1992

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API