Mary Smith bought a car from Doug Chapman under an installment sales contract. Smith carried the insurance on the car, as required by the contract. Shortly after Smith purchased the car, it was wrecked in an accident. Smith’s insurance company paid Chapman the installments still owed on the car as well as Smith’s equity in the car. Smith requested a new car from Chapman under an installment plan that was the same as the one under which she purchased the first car. Chapman refused, claiming that the contract for the first car allowed him to retain the equity amount as security interest and that Smith understood this as a term of the contract. The provision relating to the security interest appeared on the back of the contract, although the Truth-in-Lending Act required it to be on the front side. The front side had a notice referring to provisions on the back side. Explain whether Chapman’s contract violates the Truth-in-Lending Act.