Unconscionability rears its head in contracts where the bargaining powers of one of the parties in the contract were removed to the point that the party had no actual choice in making the contract. There is no known evidence to show such a situation occurred.
Surely you jest .
I do not. You have a counter point that fits within the legal definitions of contract unconscionability? I look forward to hearing it.
Unconscionability is a contract term. We know, actually, that contract based claims are not judicially barred under HERA. Therefore, this claim would not be barred under HERA.
Claims of duties of FHFA have been unilaterially dismissed. These actions, any actions are based in contracts, they've all been washed away like the snow and the rain.
I never actually said anything about a claim of duty. However, Perry quite clearly remanded its suit related to fiduciary duties, so you would appear to be wrong.
What I ACTUALLY said was that contract related issues were determined not barred by HERA, under Perry.
More of the same. Either it is or it isn't. Pick a square any square just stay on it.
Problem with fhfa and treasury they pick the argument / defense to sway between on and off. Like a light switch. And here yet the same. Truth is its not the truth. eh.
You liken the law to a light switch. Afraid it doesn't quite work that way. The law is more like a dimmer.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
