I supposed all this, to a point. AFter work one day, he told me about a beautiful home he found in another town. I wasn’t too happy about it first bc i have 2 maids’s in high school and didn’t want them leaving all their friends they grew up with. WEll. WE decided to get it. SIgned paperwork for a 30 year harmony… 5 days later he went to work and never responded. HE did contact me and asked if i could bring him his clothes. I did and he watched me with venomous eyes and said. ” i hate you. I don’t want you and you are nothing but scum. ” we didn’t even have an altercation the night before all this before he left. WE are now 6 months out, he has moved to an unknown locality, won’t give me a divorce. I have to get an lawyer which i can’t afford right now. 2 days after he left me, he was walking the fair with his high school sweetheart who is also married, he paid for dating sites during our affiliation, had multiple women’s numbers in an old phone that he left behind,got cash furthers that i knew nothing about, continuously told my daughters’s that i was crazy and needed meds. THere is so much more pain i endured, but this is a few. I will never value how someone could hurt another human being in this matter. THe past 6 years i have been living a lie. MY one and only marriage i ever wanted in my life is now a horror. I will remain to pray for healing for anybody that comes in contact with these types. IT’s not fair and we did not deserve this pain. INteresting… i got the same message from his first ex wife.
THerefore, the bank left it to the consumer to settle when the 12 month exaltation period expires based on when the transfer is transacted on the account. THe direct mail solicitation to which the web browser retorted restrained the posterior advice, which became part of the grazer’s assent with the bank:as stated, for an act or congress to be misleading, the shopper’s biopsy of the sketch, omission, or custom must be cheap. IN assessing whether a shopper’s interpretation is affordable, it is adjusted to look at the entire advertisement, dealing, or course of dealing to conclude how a low-cost shopper would respond. IN this consultation, it was rated that the browser’s analysis of the hortative offer and disclosures was low-cost, particularly in light of the entire course of dealing between the parties. HEre, the browser acknowledged monthly irregular assertions showing the liberal balance of the deliver, credit for expenses remitted, the new balance, and no finance charges. THis was cited each month for 12 months with no notice from the bank at any time that the new balance on the monthly chronicle had to be paid by a certain date to avoid finance charges. THere was nothing in this course of dealing to warn the consumer that her examination of the term of the promotional offer was false or was not shared by the bank. ADvertising lesson 2:assiduity must be exercised to ensure that 1 representations made in advertisements are faithful, clear, and satisfactorily warning to convey to customers the message designed and 2 ongoing proclamations made during the account affiliation fortify, not controvert or cloud, the intended advertised message. HEre, the counsellors achieved the shopper’s examination of the conflicting symbols or repeated errors, as to when the zero percent content interest rate expired, was affordable given the totality of the condition and the net idea. TO find a design, omission, or convention deceptive under section 5 of the ftc act, the sketch, omission, or convention must be cloth. A design, omission, or practice is fabric if it is likely to affect a web browser’s arbitrament about a product or service. REpresentations about costs are hypothetical textile. OMissions about costs are presumed textile when the bank knew or should have known the grazer needed the omitted information to assess the cost of a product or service. 12 for case, in advertisement audience 2, the consultants finished not only that the consumer’s interpretation of the bank’s doubles and derelictions was affordable with respect to when the zero percent first regard rate period expired, but that the representations and errors were pall to the web browser’s decision anent when to pay off the superb card balance. IN advertising discussion 3, the facts present a clear example of materiality within the context of section 5 of the ftc act. HEre, the bank constantly ran ads in local circulars, on the radio, and through a direct mail contest that claimed that customers would receive free credit reports. TYpically, the alphabet in these promos stated: “call for a free credit report” or simply “free credit report. ” the picture of a free credit report was neither efficient nor patented in the ads. IF a web browser asked for a copy of the report, it was assigned free to the betrayer. HOwever, if that grazer at last applied for and was granted credit, the cost of the credit report would be charged to the shopper at closing. NOthing in the bank’s records or advances suggest that public were told they would be charged a fee for the “free credit report” if they conventional a loan. ADvertising lesson 3:idols that go to the heart of a browser’s mediation with respect to a bank product or service must be cautiously checked and monitored for preciseness and clarity. THe fdic deems idols about costs, gains, or restrictions on the use or availableness of a product or service to be pall. 15 in publicity meeting 3, the bank reported free credit reports without qualification or article. HOwever, in practice, when a shopper applied for and was granted a loan, the bank would charge the cost of the credit report to the web browser at the loan closing. AS stated above, the criterion for finding an act or meeting deceptive have been certified by the ftc and adopted by the fdic.