Two Summary of WAMU Legal Issue

McKell Versus Washington Mutual Bank

Case for Consumer Rights

McKell v . Washington Mutual Bank (2006 ) is a case for consumer rights highlighting the prerogative of the consumers to `buy at the right price ' In this case , the consumers were not buying goods and services Rather , the market consisted of real property and one of the stakeholders - Washington Mutual , Inc . - was overstating the prices of underwriting , tax services , and wire transfer fees in conjunction with home loans ' Washington Mutual Bank had overcharged the buyers for these services - alleged the plaintiffs (few

of the buyers ) - when the actual prices that the bank had paid to service providers for the self same services were less . The defendants (Washington Mutual ) were simply making a profit on the services they had bought off different providers and selling to other members of society that needed them at the time Is this kind of profit making unlawful ? - From the viewpoint of consumers , it may very well be unlawful , seeing that all consumers want to pay the `best prices ' However , if the consumers were to stop using the services of Washington Mutual Bank , they would possibly have to visit various service providers for underwriting , tax services , and wire transfers , and still come to the defendants for home loans . In the integrative business of Washington Mutual , everything is taken care of In view of this , it was decided by a trial court in California that the complaint made by the plaintiffs must be dismissed on the grounds that there had been no written agreement between the parties to state that Washington Mutual , Inc . cannot charge in excess of the prices that it pays to the service providers . The case went into appeal . It is going to continue being considered in fact , the California Court of Appeal has agreed with a part of the plaintiff 's complaint and agreed to review this consumer case further

The main reason why the McKell v . Washington Mutual Bank case has still not been shut is that consumers feel deceived when they are told that they are being charged simply the prices of the services bought when in fact the sellers have overcharged . Although profit making is not considered illegal , in this case the consumers feel cheated because they had been informed by Washington Mutual that they were being charged the prices of certain services that cost a certain amount . As it turned out , the prices charged included a huge markup , while the consumers continued to believe that they were paying the `right prices ' The plaintiffs failed to produce all necessary documents to support their allegations . Nevertheless , the fact that Washington Mutual had failed to mention to the consumers that a service fee was being added for the services in question - has landed the bank in hot water . Moreover , by charging a price that is higher than the market price , the bank is responsible for going against Congress 's stated intent to protect consumers from unnecessarily high settlement charges ' Indeed , this...