1. By phone, Patricia Sanford bought fitness tapes. The call center operator read Sanford a script...

Transcribed Image Text:

1. By phone, Patricia Sanford bought fitness tapes. The call center operator read Sanford a script saying that for buying the tapes, Memberworks inc. (Member) was sending membership in a program called essentials. The program had a thirty-day free trial and if not canceled in that time, cost $6 per month, which was billed in advance to the credit card used to purchase the tapes. Sanford did not remember hearing the script, agreeing to the membership, or receiving a membership kit. She did not cancel, so her credit card was charged $72 the next month and $84 the next year. She sued, alleging, among other things, violation of the EFTA. Had the transaction violated that act? 2. Gary Vaughn executed a document stating that Fred and Martha smith were loaning him $9,900. With regard to when the loan was to be repaid, the document stated, "when you can." About eighteen months later, the smiths sued Vaughn for the entire amount, contending that the document was a note payable on demand and that it was a negotiable instrument. Was the document a negotiable note? 1. By phone, Patricia Sanford bought fitness tapes. The call center operator read Sanford a script saying that for buying the tapes, Memberworks inc. (Member) was sending membership in a program called essentials. The program had a thirty-day free trial and if not canceled in that time, cost $6 per month, which was billed in advance to the credit card used to purchase the tapes. Sanford did not remember hearing the script, agreeing to the membership, or receiving a membership kit. She did not cancel, so her credit card was charged $72 the next month and $84 the next year. She sued, alleging, among other things, violation of the EFTA. Had the transaction violated that act? 2. Gary Vaughn executed a document stating that Fred and Martha smith were loaning him $9,900. With regard to when the loan was to be repaid, the document stated, "when you can." About eighteen months later, the smiths sued Vaughn for the entire amount, contending that the document was a note payable on demand and that it was a negotiable instrument. Was the document a negotiable note?