(background - in Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code a debtor is defined as the person who has property interest in the collateral used to secure a debt. If a person owes money but doesn't have property interest in the collateral, they're an obligor. So, if somebody owes a debt and secures the debt with some property and then sells that property funny things happen - namely, the person who owes is no longer a debtor w/r/t to that property even if they still owe "a debt", the secured interest remains, and the buyer - who owes nothing to the secured party - becomes the debtor. And since Secured Transactions is essentially just some kind of big logic game, we're covering what happens when somebody buys a piece of property that is secured, when they have a security agreement with somebody else that grants interest in all their "after-acquired" collateral, which would include the item they just purchase that another party already has a secured interest in... don't worry, you don't have to get that, but it's about figuring out which interests have "priority" or get first crack at any money that comes from selling off the collateral if we go there, and it's the only time that I've ever felt that anything I did on the LSAT bore any relevance to my law school career - only one week from graduation!)
... Wow... that was a long explanation.
And with that I present: WHO'S THE DEBTOR?
Student: so it's the double-debtor problem, but the language refers to the interest created "by the debtor." Is that the original debtor creating the interest?
Teacher: right...under 9-325 the debtor's interest is subordinate to the security interest in the same collateral.
Student: but isn't that the opposite of what you just said? Is it the same debtor in 9-325(a)? Who's the debtor?
Teacher: er, uh, reads same passage. So property acquired by the debtor subject to a secured interest created by another, that security interest is less in priority than ... so that's the buyer.
Student: so, it's a different debtor than 9-325(a)? (incidentally, all of this is being quoted from 9-325(a), so I have no idea what the student is talking about).
Teacher: um, well, than who? If the debtor buys...
Student: Wait, which debtor?
Student: who's the debtor? Why is the debtor buying property?
Teacher:
Finally Helpful Student: so when we say debtor, there are TWO debtors, the original debtor and the buyer. Who's the debtor?
Teacher: Oh! Article 9-325 refers to the buyer-debtor.
... collective gasp as the remaining students paying attention and not banging their heads on the table finally get it! ...
Student in the Back: Well... sh*#t...
... uncomfortable gigging...
Teacher: Er, uh, well, yes that's Article 9 ... sometimes it makes you just wanna pull your hair out...
And in other you are not as secure in your job as you think news, 80% of employers with ten or more employees do extensive internet research of all applicants, while 50% of monitor all email and other internet activity on their servers, and an industry has built up around firms that specifically monitor the off-duty online activities of specified employees. These firms are able and encouraged to hack most basic privacy settings and apparently doing so is not currently illegal. Since we live in an at-will (mostly) system, employers can fire their employees for all sorts of things that don't fall into statutorily targeted areas (which are a pain in the ass to litigate for everyone, but particularly tough to prove in court). However, and here's my favorite part - if you write something nasty about your boss on facebook, you're in unquestionable firing range, but if you post something nasty and a coworker posts something too agreeing... it just might be protected concerted activity. The NLRB just successfully argued a case with this very fact pattern. The moral being: if you're going to moan and whine in the utterly immortal and accessible electronic online medium, make sure that you've got some friends to get into the party with you.
No comments:
Post a Comment