I want the answer to question 1 and 2 which is located at the bottom of the page

Question

I want the answer to question 1 and 2 which is located at the bottom of the page. I am adding the backgrond case to answer those two questions. Thanks.

Background and Facts On April 27, 1985, Marie Madeleine Tondreau (the debtor) completed an Application for MasterCard and Cardholders Agreement requesting a MasterCard with a credit limit of $500. The Credit Union approved Marie's application on May 17, 1985, and thereafter issued a MasterCard to her. Between May 1985 and July 1986, the Credit Union raised the limit on the debtor's MasterCard account from $500 to $1,000. On July 8, 1986, the Credit Union issued a let- ter to her informing her that her MasterCard account exceeded the assigned limit of $1,000 by $166.83. The Credit Union further notified her that it would revoke her MasterCard privileges if she failed to bring the account within the assigned spending limit by July 18, 1986. On July 21,1986, after the date set for revoking the debtor's credit card privileges, the Credit Union issued notice to Marie informing her that it had decided to terminate her credit card and asked her to return the MasterCard to the Credit Union. The notice listed the reasons for its action as MasterCard Overlimit and loan Delinquent" Marie testified at frial that she received both the July 8, 1986, leter and the termination notice from the Credit Union. She testified that upon receiving the notice from the Credit Union she understood that her MasterCard privi- eges were revoked Following the termination of her credit card privileges, the state ments concerning Marie's MasterCard account reflect the following octivity August 25. 1986 Statement Payments New Activity Finance Charge New Balance 61.77 16.71 1,165.47 September 23, 1986 Statement Payments New Activity Finance charge 270.00 -0 14.86 910.33 New Balance

Explanation / Answer

1. If we look at the purchases made by Marie with respect to the shoes, and the definition of non-luxury goods which says the goods that are reasonably acquired for the support or maintenance then we can conclude from the list of expenses that there are multiple purchases of shoes from good and premium brands, and hence we can conclude that they definitely fall under the category of luxury goods. And as they fall under the luxury goods category they have been termed as the non dischargeable purchases as they are not pertaining to the sustenance of the debtor or the dependent.

2. Definitely it as a false pretence, as the debtor already received the notice about the revoking of credit card privileges, as she knew about that fact, she used the loophole available in the system and ensured that the purchases are below $50 and if we look at the purchases also, all of them do not fall under tha sustenance activity of the debtor or the dependent.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse I
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.