Abstract
House Bill No. 254, effective August 26, 1982, involves a balancing of competing interests as well as an attempt to bring Ohio law into compliance with the procedural requirements mandated, on Constitutional grounds, by various U.S. Supreme Court cases. It involves a cost-benefit analysis because, in making decisions in this area, one must balance the costs associated with procedural requirements against the benefits afforded to consumers. The costs involved are costs to consumers, as there is little doubt that any costs associated with the procedural requirements in effect since August 26, 1982, will be borne by consumers. To be sure, financial institutions are subject to financial and regulatory constraints. However, given any reasonable assumptions about elasticity of demand, the financial institutions have the economic power to pass increased costs on. Of course, we are talking about primary demand, not selective demand; selective demand is not an issue since all financial institutions will be subject to procedural requirement of H.B. 254. As for regulation, this author is not aware of any regulations that would prevent financial institutions from passing the procedural cost on to consumers.
Recommended Citation
Coleman, Peggy M.; Ross, Warren R.; and Finan, John P.
(1983)
"Creditor's Rights in Ohio: An Extensive Revision,"
Akron Law Review: Vol. 16:
Iss.
3, Article 5.
Available at:
https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol16/iss3/5