Clay v. Oxendine
Georgia Court of Appeals
285 Ga. App. 50, 645 S.E.2d 553 (2007)

- Written by Alex Ruskell, JD
Facts
Clay (defendant) engaged in a business using sale/leaseback transactions in which a customer purportedly sold personal property to Clay then immediately leased that property back. Customers were advanced funds based on this sale and were required to provide the name of their employers and length of employment, salary and pay dates, checking account information, a recent pay stub, and bank statements. The customers also provided a debit authorization in the amount of the principal advanced plus interest. The first payment was due within two weeks, and the customers were released from the agreement only after paying the principal amount plus a 25 percent to 27 percent fee, amounting to annual percentage rate of 650 percent to 702 percent. Some of the transactions involved the sale of the same cell phone and power pack to several different customers, and a customer who sold a can opener and coffee maker for $450. All sales amounts equaled the amount that the customer was loaned, and customers stated that they only signed the sales documents because they needed the money. Oxendine (plaintiff) sued, arguing that Clay’s arrangement was an unlawful payday loan. The court ruled in Oxendine’s favor, and Clay appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bernes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.