Looks like Steve & Steve have competition.
An “informed consent in lending” Constitutional Amendment has been filed with the Attorney General and an opinion on same has been issued today with regards to capping loan rates, but allowing a higher rate upon specific disclosure of the rate. As noted in the measure:
No lender may charge interest for the loan or use of money in excess of eighteen per cent per annum unless the borrower agrees to another rate in writing. No law fixing an annual percentage rate of interest for the loan or use of money is valid unless the law provides borrowers the right to contract at interest rates as may be agreed to by the parties.
Should a person have the right to contract for a certain service at a certain rate if they’re made fully aware of the ramifications and the charges?
In the traditional sense of the word, Informed consent is a process for getting permission before a healthcare intervention on a person. Why or why not would an informed consent in lending be appropriate is a person wishes to seek the service?