Weekly Bulletin Board Report

•  “Master-Lease Agreement” for $70,000:

“My name is ***** from ****** and I am sending you this e-mail in hopes that you would print a warning to all potential leasing customers to avoid doing business with ************ on your website www.leasingnews.org. They are refusing to return my deposit on a potential lease. My situation is that I have a silent partner who does not sign personally on leases for this business. There are other partners who total over 52% of the stock that would sign. I specifically told ********** that they need to be more creative to help me finance a piece of mfg. equipment. There contention is they have only leasing avenues that all partners need to sign personally. I was approached from (another leasing company) ... and they are funding this deal and ********* refused to return any phone calls from either myself or the company who is funding the lease.

******* stands to gain more by keeping my entire deposit of over 5K than to receive their commission.

“I have attached documents that I have sent to the BBB for your review. I believe *********** is only a broker. I feel it is people like ******** and ********** who tarnish and give the leasing industry a bad name.”

One of the documents the person with the complaint sent was a “Master Lease Agreement. In the second sentence of the second paragraph, it states “Additional documentation includes, but is not limited to personal guarantees from all major stockholders.”

Many companies consider that to be 10%, some 20%.

In addition, it spells out terms, such as “Non-Performance by Lessee” quite well. Whether the wording is legal or not, the intention is expressed to us was most important. The document spelled out the terms and conditions of the commitment, such as not taking the lease elsewhere.

The consumer argued that he was misled. He told Leasing News he had told them not all the corporate owners would guarantee the lease. Whether this is true or not, there is no written Substantiation to this statement. As a matter of fact, the lessee signed the Master Lease with the condition that all major stockholders were required to guarantee the lease.

While the lessee may say he was “talked into it,” the exchange took part by overnight mail, giving time to the lessee to read the document, perhaps delete the sentence regarding personal guarantees.

The Better Business Bureau gives the Leasing Company a BBB, “A very high rating. A company with this rating would not have a significant number of complaints or other considerations that could pose a problem to consumers.” Addition to the rating, is the explanation: BBB had two responses, one," Agreeing to perform according to their contract" and the other, "Refuse to adjust, relying on terms of agreement."

In discussing the complaint with the Leasing Company, they said what was left out was the guarantor in question, on the tax returns and D&B report, owned 49% of the company. He was not a minority stock holder. He said he would try other sources, also asked for other alternatives to the original terms and conditions, but the lessee was impatient and took the lease to another company. The lessee then started telling the original source and the new leasing company “half truths,” and also brought in an attorney.

After considerable conflict on this, the said he wished he had never seen the deal. Whether at one time he would have returned the money, or even part of it, it moot at this time, as it has gone past that point.

Leasing News informed both the lessee and leasing company this did not appear to be a legitimate complaint for the Bulletin Board. We are not in the position to give a legal opinion, but only to post a complaint that follows our policy.