When borrowers seek a line of credit or loan, they are often entering into somewhat unfamiliar territory. Borrower regulations change with frequency, and an investment practice may seem legit that really isn’t. The odds are stacked in the favor of lenders, who stay current on the ins and outs of the law and find ways to manipulate the system while still appearing to navigate within the parameters of regulation.
Even though the 80s saw borrowers finally gaining a leg to stand on when it came to the less-than-forthcoming practices of some financial lenders, many lenders still feel safe making oral promises due to the parol evidence rule. The parol evidence rule disallowed a borrower from presenting as an in-court admission that an oral agreement was made that was in disaccord with a later written agreement. The premise of this rule was that memory is not as factually clear as a written and signed contract. However, this can make it commonplace for a lender to say that signing a document is just a formality, or summarizing lengthy documents without the borrower reading and making a verbal side agreement not dictated in the tangible document.
There are exceptions to this rule, and previous court cases have demonstrated that borrowers can be victorious, particularly if the document, as it stands and without a verbal agreement, makes obvious poor financial sense for the borrower.
If you feel you have been misguided by a lender and are now facing a financial predicament, it may serve you well to contact an Ohio business litigation attorney. They can review your case and may be able to poke holes in the lender’s contract or present exceptions based upon fraudulent oral agreements.
