Texas House Bill HB2556

Texas 2009 - 81st Regular

• Out of House Committee: 4/21/09
• Voted on by House: 5/4/09
• Out of Senate Committee: 5/18/09
• Voted on by Senate: 5/25/09
• Governor Action: 6/19/09
• Enrolled: 5/30/09
• Passed: 6/19/09

Caption

Relating to the rights and duties of the parties to a motor vehicle retail installment contract or a conditional delivery agreement involving the sale or conditional delivery of a motor vehicle; providing an administrative penalty.

Impact

The bill modifies existing regulations outlined in Chapter 348 of the Finance Code, significantly impacting how motor vehicle sales and financing arrangements are structured in Texas. By defining the parameters of conditional delivery agreements, the bill aims to protect prospective buyers by ensuring that they are refunded for any payments made, should a formal purchase not materialize. The enforcement of these provisions is placed solely within the jurisdiction of the commissioner, establishing a clear regulatory framework for compliance and oversight of retail installment contracts.

Summary

House Bill 2556 addresses the rights and duties related to motor vehicle retail installment contracts and conditional delivery agreements. The legislation specifically introduces provisions regarding the nature of conditional delivery agreements, stating that such agreements must not confer any legal or equitable rights of ownership to the prospective buyer. It allows prospective buyers to use a vehicle for a limited term not exceeding 15 days. Additionally, if a final retail installment contract is not executed by the end of this period, the retail seller is required to refund any consideration provided by the buyer within seven days after the contract's termination.

Contention

There were discussions around the implications of the bill, especially concerning local regulations regarding vehicle sales and financing. Some expressed concerns that while the bill aims to provide clarity and consumer protection, it may inadvertently limit flexibility for businesses operating in the seller financing space. The lack of a private right of action under this legislation means that disputes primarily fall under the authority of the commissioner, which some stakeholders view as potentially undermining consumer recourse options. Ultimately, the conversation around HB2556 highlights a balancing act between consumer protection and the regulatory landscape for motor vehicle sales.