PRIDE HYUNDAL, INC. v. Chrysler Financial Co., LLC

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that CFC’s response to Pride’s defaults was to place Pride on “Finance Hold”
• “For the next few months, Pride demonstrated its growing displeasure with CFC (in particular, its displeasure with CFC’s demand of the 1.5% security deposit against potential future retail charge backs
• “[I]t is CFC’s right under the Security Agreement and Master Credit Agreements to keep its UCC filings in place until and unless Pride posts some satisfactory alternate security to replace those UCC filings.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).