Capital One Mastercard Agreement
Further, based on the Eleventh District Veale Standard, the court notes that there is nothing unclear or discreet about the terms used by Capital One in its appeal documents. The use of the terms "firm" and "weak" in promotional materials is a promotional whiff on the part of the Company. "Low" and "firm" mean at most the same rate for the future and not the same rate for life. Some of the plaintiffs here testified that they did not believe that Capital One had the right to change the APR (unless the consumer had breached the terms of the credit card agreement). The court notes that this is not a reasonable understanding of consumer rights, especially if the 2005 client agreement clearly states that Capital One had the right to "supplement, delete, modify or modify any part of the provision of this agreement, including annual percentages." In fact, half of the applicants here admitted that they understood that Capital One had the right to change the APR. In these circumstances, the most natural reading of "fixed" would be "non-variable" as a LIBOR-based interest rate. Lavallie opened his credit card account with Capital One on March 6, 1999. Lavallie did not receive a fixed "lifetime" purchase offer on its Capital One credit card account. Lavallie didn`t remember exactly what ad led him to apply for a Capital One credit card, but he testified that his interest rate was 9.5%, which he thought was low. Lavallie testified that he did not believe that the 2005 agreement with the client applied to him because he believed he had been a "grandfather" under the terms of the advertisements.
Lavallie believed he was a "lifetime customer with a fixed price." He felt he had a "handshake agreement with them based on TV commercials." Lavallie testified that he saw no difference between the terms "weak farm" and "farm for life." For him, a "fixed interest rate [ means that it will not change" and "there is no definition of time in it. Because life means life to me. He went on to explain, "I can`t tell you if the ad was repaired for life or if it was just repaired. If you have any questions about the agreements themselves, contact the card issuer directly. For the same reason, the plaintiffs` argument that Capital One has an "internal policy" that it would not change a "fixed" interest rate for three years cannot form the basis of a claim for default. Such a "policy" was not an agreement between consumers and Capital One. The agreements filed contain general conditions, prices and information on fees. They are not specific to someone`s account information. Due to the age of Lavallie`s account, the original customer contract sent to lavallie`s account is not available.
Capital One notified the applicant of the 2005 agreement with the client shortly after it came into effect. Lavallie`s bank statements show that the APR for purchases made between August 12, 2000 and January 12, 2002 was set at 9.9% when it was raised to a fixed interest rate of 8.9%. On 12 August 2003, it changed to a fixed interest rate of 6.9%; on 12 March 2005 at a variable rate of 10.65 per cent; on 12 April 2005 at a fixed interest rate of 7,9 %; on 14 March 2007 at a fixed interest rate of 9,9 %; on 12 May 2007 at a variable rate of 9.88 per cent; on 18 April 2008 at a fixed interest rate of 9.9%; and June 18, 2008 at a variable interest rate of 10.11%. The plaintiffs` unscrupulous argument is based on the general provision to amend the terms of the 2005 Client Agreement, which allows Capital One to "supplement, delete, amend or modify any part or provision of this Agreement." The plaintiffs argue that this provision is unscrupulous because it allows the defendant to raise interest rates or charge fees "as high as it deems appropriate." The plaintiffs argue that no reasonable party would accept a contract where there is no provision to limit rate increases. The applicants submitted that, in the context of an action for a declaratory judgment, they could assert that they had "lack of scruples". Solsberry opened its Capital One credit card on October 18, 2004 and closed the account in May 2010. There is nothing in the records showing the agreement that governed Solsberry`s card when it first opened it, but shortly after the effective date, Capital One mailed the 2005 customer agreement. Solsberry testified that, under the terms of the 2005 customer agreement, it understood that the account could be closed and that its terms had been changed. We display consumer credit card agreements in this database as submitted by the respective issuers. The CFPB is not responsible for the content of the agreements, including any discrepancies between an agreement as presented in this database and the agreement as made available to the public, or any omission or other error in the agreement as presented by the issuer. If none of these reasons apply and you still can`t agree, call them to ask for a copy of your agreement. Under federal law, your credit card issuer is required to provide a copy of your agreement upon request.
See DSMUF, ¶ 107. Like many other plaintiffs, Lavallie attempts to deny this fact by stating, "Although the buzzword `for life` was never used, the terms of Captain Lavallie`s account were such that as long as Capital One did not violate the terms of his credit card agreement, he would continue to honor his termination of the agreement by lending him money at the previously agreed interest rate." See or ¶ 107. The court does not see the legal significance of this statement in the sense of "respecting its end of the agreement". It certainly does not dispute the defendant`s factual assertion that Lavallie did not receive a "fixed lifetime" offer on APR for that credit card. In addition, Lavallie does not refer to a specific contractual provision that provides that the terms of the contract will not change until it has violated the terms of the agreement. Barker did not recall whether he had responded to a specific request to receive his Capital One credit card in 2003. Therefore, there is no information in the file that Barker ever received a "fixed for life" offer. Barker testified that he "understood" that his interest rate would remain "fixed" at 7.9%. Barker believed capital One would "maintain [its] rate at this level unless it violates the terms of the agreement." California residents received a different version of the 2005 Customer Agreement, but the California Agreement included the relevant provisions mentioned above. The parties` statements on key facts are far-reaching and not targeted.
The Court undertook to limit its examination of the facts to those relevant to the pleas put forward by the applicants. There is no doubt that the discovery showed that the defendant had sent hundreds of millions of direct mail requests during the relevant period. The discovery also shows that it was a huge task for the defendant to track cardholders with the terms of their initial offers. When the respondent made the decision to change the terms of the credit cards, it was again difficult for the respondent to track groups of cardholders and adapt the communication of the changes to those cardholders. Similarly, the discovery shows that in 2009, the defendant made the decision to change the terms of credit card agreements in order to minimize its risk in a challenging economic environment in which credit status fluctuated significantly. None of those facts alone makes it possible to infringe any of the pleas put forward by the applicants. In particular, the company`s desire to reduce the cost of doing business in an uncertain economic environment is not wrong. The frequently asked questions referred to in the amended complaint relate to (1) Capital One`s representations with respect to its products; (2) if Capital One has unilaterally increased the annual percentage rate of charge; (3) whether the card contract and applicable law permitted such an increase; (4) if Capital One has made a false declaration of its product; (5) and whether a reasonable consumer would likely have been deceived by Capital One`s statements. Amended compl., ¶ 76.
The court sees no way to inform the issues in this case through documents relating to Capital One`s knowledge of the upcoming regulatory changes. The issues in this case relate to Capital One`s shares and compliance with applicable law and the contractual obligations of the parties. Whether Capital One hastily implemented the allegedly illegal system of raising interest rates due to impending regulatory changes is irrelevant to the plaintiffs` means. Despite those earlier guidelines of the Court, the applicants were not in a position to concentrate their arguments on their pleas. . . .