From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
Minor v. Chase Auto Finance Corporation
Arkansas Supreme Court
2010 Ark. 246, 72 U.C.C.2d 610 (2010)
Mose Minor (plaintiff) financed the purchase of a 2003 Toyota Tundry with funds from Chase Auto Finance Corporation (Chase) (defendant). The agreement required Minor to make 66 monthly payments by the fourteenth of every month. Under the agreement, modifications had to be in writing and signed by both parties. Also, Minor agreed that if Chase were to take partial payments or extend Minor’s due date, these actions would not constitute a waiver of Chase’s right to require strict performance of the contract as written going forward. Minor was late for his first payment and various payments thereafter. At one point, right before Chase was about to repossess the vehicle, Chase and Minor agreed to extend the length of the agreement by two months. The agreement regarding the extension made clear that all other provisions of the contract remained in force. In November 2004, Minor petitioned for bankruptcy under Chapter 7. Chase acknowledged that Minor’s past debt was discharged but indicated that if Minor wanted to keep the vehicle, he would need to continue making payments. Minor fell behind in his payments by three months, and Chase repossessed the vehicle. Minor sued Chase in circuit court. Among other things, Minor argued that by Chase repeatedly accepting late payments, Chase had established a pattern of conduct that changed the contract, resulting in a waiver of Chase’s right to strictly enforce the contract by repossessing the vehicle without first notifying Minor that strict compliance with the contract would be required going forward. Chase countered that because of the nonwaiver clause and the clause preventing unwritten modifications, it was not required to notify Minor that it would strictly enforce the contract. The circuit court granted Chase’s motion for a directed verdict. Minor appealed, and the appellate court certified a question to the Arkansas Supreme Court regarding the impact of nonwaiver clauses and clauses preventing unwritten modification of a contract if the creditor had established a pattern of accepting late payments.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Sheffield, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 618,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 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.