[BeaverFever]

llama66 llama66:

Except your paying for a service. The warrenty is null and void, but they’re still expecting you to pay for a service they’re no longer offering.

No,THE LENDER paid for those services on your behalf. Now you have to payback the lender. You’re not paying sears you’re paying the company you borrowed money from to shop at sears.

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

llama66 llama66:

Except your paying for a service. The warrenty is null and void, but they’re still expecting you to pay for a service they’re no longer offering.

No,THE LENDER paid for those services on your behalf. Now you have to payback the lender. You’re not paying sears you’re paying the company you borrowed money from to shop at sears.

Good point. Can't argue that at all.

[BeaverFever]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

They may have been a poorly managed company but that doesn't negate the fact that the customers who purchased appliances or other items though Sears still received those products.

What's happening now is the problem. Nobody said people shouldn't pay back what they owe for the appliances that they actually took possession of. What they're saying is that they shouldn't have to pay for a non existent warranty. TBH Sears should have eaten the warranty's like they expected all of the people who bought their product with a warranty to do. But, I guess that would have cut into the amount the Bank and finance company would be willing to pay for their equity which, in turn would have cut into the executives bonus for bankrupting what was once a viable company.

They’re not paying Sears or the Sears creditors. They are paying the people they borrowed money from. If I borrow money from you to go shopping, I need to honour the loan agreement and pay you back, even if that thing I bought is a rip-off no? Why should you ear the loss? Am I missing something here? Was this Sears in-house financing or something?

[llama66]

Not at all, an extended warranty is still a contract, they agree to provide service "x" and you agree to pay "y". By not honouring service "x" they are in breach of contract. The contract is void. you should not be paying "y". Those warranties should have been voided the moment sears ceased operations to be honest. They should reach out to a contract law lawyer. Chances are they'll be able to have the contract dissolved. Or do the douche, and not pay, ignore the creditors calls for two years and have the debt called unrecoverable, and written off. But again that's called the deadbeat douche.

I look forward to the court ruling.

[BartSimpson]

llama66 llama66:

Not at all, an extended warranty is still a contract, they agree to provide service "x" and you agree to pay "y". By not honouring service "x" they are in breach of contract. The contract is void. you should not be paying "y". Those warranties should have been voided the moment sears ceased operations to be honest. They should reach out to a contract law lawyer. Chances are they'll be able to have the contract dissolved. Or do the douche, and not pay, ignore the creditors calls for two years and have the debt called unrecoverable, and written off. But again that's called the deadbeat douche.

I look forward to the court ruling.

Beaver is right on this one.

The loan was taken out by the borrower, the money paid to Sears. Sears going tits up does not relieve the borrower of their obligation to the lender.

It's a shitty situation but that's the way it is.

[BeaverFever]

llama66 llama66:

Not at all, an extended warranty is still a contract, they agree to provide service "x" and you agree to pay "y". By not honouring service "x" they are in breach of contract. The contract is void. you should not be paying "y". Those warranties should have been voided the moment sears ceased operations to be honest. They should reach out to a contract law lawyer. Chances are they'll be able to have the contract dissolved. Or do the douche, and not pay, ignore the creditors calls for two years and have the debt called unrecoverable, and written off. But again that's called the deadbeat douche.

I look forward to the court ruling.

Sears owes the customers money back. Unfortunately Sears no longer exists. The warranty is null and voud and the contract is worthless

What you’re failing to understand is that the customers aren’t paying Sears they borrowed money. FROM A THIRD PARTY to make that purchase at Sears and thwy need to pay those people vack. The financing contract with the lender has nothing to do with the warranty contract with Sears those are completely different things. I don’t know how many other ways I can say this

If I had borrowed money from you, llama, so I could go buy something at sears wouldn’t you still be expecting me to pay you back? Why would you agree to eat the loss instead of me?

[herbie]

Technically you're correct, but you put yourself in same solid wall of apprentice to tradesperson to manager to supervisor all the way to Federal Minister all telling us how well you followed policy when there's a dead person at their feet.
You're right, no matter how wrong it is.
Policy might seem wrong, but it can't be because it's policy.