@Jeffos, it's absolutely an acceptable way to do business.
Your hypothetical scenario is a false analogy: When the mortgage contract is signed, it contains specific language saying, "If the borrower on the loan, such-and-such will happen." He's not in breach of the contract, because everything that happens here is contemplated in the contract.
No offense intended, but your "bank decides to call the loan early and claim the house" scenario demonstrates that you don't know how secured transactions work.
The short version: Everyone in this story is perfectly within their legal--and moral--obligations under the mortgage contract. The immoral act would be if one of the parties violated the terms of the contract, i.e., failed to do what they originally promised to do. In this case, that's not happening.
The simplest explanation is that his roommate's playing a joke on him, turning the jar upside-down overnight and then right-side-up in the morning when the jam has cooled and set.
Fascinating article! I've always thought Wales and the Southern US (where I live) had a lot in common: both are commonly perceived by outsiders as being an "uncivilized" or "backward" part of their nations, both have separatist pasts, both have rich artistic traditions. I'd love to visit there sometime.
I've wondered about the mist-sprayers in grocery stores' produce sections that have become omnipresent in the last decade or so. Sure, it keeps the produce from drying out, but when you're buying produce by weight, you're also buying the water for $2.49 a pound or whatever the veggie costs. Wouldn't add much to an individual's tally, but I'm sure it adds to the store's profits in the long run.
I can believe the 3,276 texts/month figure easily. That's about 100 per day. I send about 20-30 per day; it's the main way I communicate with some friends when we're not in the same room. I can easily imagine a teen who's tethered to their phone sending 3 to 5 times that many.
Your hypothetical scenario is a false analogy: When the mortgage contract is signed, it contains specific language saying, "If the borrower on the loan, such-and-such will happen." He's not in breach of the contract, because everything that happens here is contemplated in the contract.
No offense intended, but your "bank decides to call the loan early and claim the house" scenario demonstrates that you don't know how secured transactions work.
The short version: Everyone in this story is perfectly within their legal--and moral--obligations under the mortgage contract. The immoral act would be if one of the parties violated the terms of the contract, i.e., failed to do what they originally promised to do. In this case, that's not happening.
Are you kidding? He totally PROVED the point! Not on purpose, but still...
It didn't fetch that much. It was priced that high, but no one bought it at that price.