Leases of Goods: Characteristics - Module 6 of 8
Module
6: Lease Characteristics
Leases and Article 2A of the UCC
While
sales are covered under Article 2 of the UCC, leases of goods are covered by
Article 2A. Article 2A was drafted to remedy anomalies in the Code and common
law pertaining to the application of legal provisions to leasing
situations. Article 2A has been adopted
by almost all US jurisdictions, excluding Louisiana and Puerto Rico. According to one senior commentator, “seventeen
years after Article 2A was first adopted, there is a large population that
still does not understand how this article works.”[1]
Article
2A was created to be distinctive from Article 2 and, therefore, Article 2’s
provisions are not binding in lease cases, but can be persuasive in
interpreting lease provisions and circumstances.[2] Leases, for example, like sales, are subject
to Article 2 rules such as fraud, estoppel and mistake. Moreover, Article 2A
generally does not preempt consumer statutory provisions. While the parties have wide freedom to
contract under Article 2A, they may not disclaim the obligations of good faith,
diligence reasonableness, and care.[3] The parties may, however, determine the
standards that govern interpretation of those terms.[4]
Leases versus Sales on Credit
The
person or entity who extends the lease of the goods is called the “lessor” and
the person or entity who rents the goods is called the “lessee.” Note that the word “leases” as a verb can be
confusing because both the lessor and the lessee in some sense “lease” the
goods. Moreover, a significant source of
litigation has been transactions that can be interpreted either as purchases on
loans or leases.[5]
The former would not be subject to the leasing rules, though would be subject
to lending and banking rules.
Still,
in a case that a lessor may believe is a lease, the lessor may still want to
file a financing statement to secure a security interest in case the transaction
is later determined to be a sale and loan of the purchase money instead of a
lease.[6] Also, a lessor may make a “fixture filing” if
the lessor anticipates the goods will become attached to real estate.[7] Certificate of title[8] states additionally require
lessors to note the existence of a lease on certificates of title that pertain
to automobiles, trailers, mobile homes, boats and farm tractors.[9]
In
some situations, leases can be hybrid transactions, incorporating elements of
both sales and secured transactions. A transaction
can be a “true lease” or a “lease intended for security,” which is not so much
a lease as a secured transaction.[10] Whether a transaction creates a lease or a
security interest depends on the nature of the lessee’s obligation to pay and
the interest in the goods retained by the lessor. If the lessee can end its obligation to pay
under the lease at any time, then the transaction is a “true lease.” The lessee in such a situation will not be
expected to retain any of the goods after termination of the agreement. While a
lessor may retain the goods after the termination of a valid lease, doing so
makes the transaction appear more like a sale on credit than a lease.[11]
Termination Fees and Purchases at Lease
Expiration
The
laws of leasing and those of secured transactions are different and, therefore,
the rights of the parties will be affected by the characterization of any
transaction.[12]
If the lease provides a payment for the lessee to purchase or acquire the
goods, then the amount will influence whether or not the lessee will likely
retain the goods at the expiration of the lease term.[13] If the amount is a low, or “nominal” amount,
then the lessee will likely exercise the option to retain the goods and
consequently, the lessor will have little expectation of acquiring the goods
back. However, if the amount is
exorbitant then the lessee will be dissuaded from retaining the goods and the
lessor will expect their return. In such a case, the transaction is more likely
to be considered a sale.
The
lessee may also be required to make a payment to the lessor upon expiration or
termination of the agreement. If the payment is a one-time payment, it may merely
be considered a termination fee or compensation for any remaining payments that
will not be made due to early termination. This sort of payment does not convey
an expectation on the part of the lessee that he or she will retain any interest
in the goods.
However,
a large penalty imposed on the lessee may be intended to serve as a deterrent
to the lessee ending the agreement before it has been entirely performed. A
punitive termination fee may be indicative of a sale and not a lease, because
it demonstrates an expectation that the “lease” would not be terminated.
However, adding an option to purchase at a reasonable price after the lease
expires can rebut this idea.
For
example, a car lease typically features monthly payments for a fixed term;
let’s assume $200 per month for 36 months. If an early termination fee assesses
a $100 fee on the lessee for each month before the 36 that she terminated the
lease, that’s reasonable compensation for the lessor’s revenue loss and would
not turn this into a sale. Let’s further assume that the lease agreement
contains a $1,000 termination fee at the end of the lease, which the lessee can
avoid by continuing the lease until the value of the car is paid in full. This
might make the transaction look a little more like a sale. On the other hand,
if the lessee is given the option to purchase the car at fair market value
after the 36 months, the termination fee might be considered less “punitive,”
making the transaction fit more comfortably within the “lease” category.
Other Factors in Lease Characteristics
Article
2A specifies various factors to determine whether an amount is “nominal.” If
the acquisition at the time of purchase or renewal price is the fair market
value of the goods, then the amount is not nominal. Also, if the purchase price
is less than the outstanding amount owed for the balance of the lease, then the
lessee will exercise the right to buy by paying the lower purchase price and,
therefore, the amount is not nominal.
Note that the determination of whether a purchase or renewal amount is
nominal is determined at the time of agreement and circumstances that would
appear to render an amount nominal would be ignored.[14]
For example, Patrick Daniels, a farmer, acquires
three tractors from Acme Leasing and Finance Company. Under the terms of the transaction, Daniels pays
monthly installments of $1,000 per tractor for three years and, at the end of
the lease, he pays a nominal amount of $2,000.
Upon a missed payment, Acme has a repossession right under the terms of
the agreement. The tractors have a fair
market value of about $35,000 each and Daniels acquires title to the tractors
at the end of the lease term and upon payment of the nominal lump sum
amount. A court would likely find the
transaction was a secured transaction and not a true lease.
In
addition to examining the termination rights under the lease, a further step
involves examining whether the lessor has a reasonable expectation of
reacquiring the goods that are the subject of the transaction. The determinative factors here are the lease
terms, along with options to renew the agreement and options to buy the
goods. One metric found in such
agreements involves the expected term of the lease and the economic life of the
goods. If the lease is for the entire
economic life of the goods, then the lessor retains little or no value in
the reacquisition, as, by that point, the goods will have been fully consumed
by the lessee’s use. A transaction like this is a sale, not a lease.
Similarly,
if the lessee must or may renew the lease for the remaining economic life of
the goods after the lease term is over, then the lessor has no reasonable
expectation of reacquiring the goods. All
of these situations depict “leases intended for security” or, more simply,
disguised security interests. These are
not true leases.[15] In our above example, if the tractors had a
five-year useful life and the term of the agreement was five years, then the
tractors would provide no residual value to Acme, the lessor, and the lessor’s
reacquisition would be largely inconsequential.
Article
2A provides a final set of factors to determine whether a lease is a disguised
security interest. One is whether the
consideration paid by the lessee equals or is greater than the fair market
value of the goods. Such transactions would be considered sales. Another is
whether the lessee is required to pay expenses related to the goods, such as
taxes, insurance, filing fees and maintenance. Again, the requirement to maintain
is indicative of a lease since, if there is no reasonable expectation of
getting the goods back, the “lessor” would not care how well the goods are
maintained.
In
our next module, we will look at the obligations of both parties to a lease
agreement.
[1]
Amelia H. Boss and Stephen T.
Whalen. The ABCs of the UCC: Article 2A:
Leases. xi. (2013).
[2] Uniform
Commercial Code – Leases, §101, Official Comment, cited in Boss and Whalen, 5.
[5] See
Laura J. Paglia, U.C.C. Article 2A: Distinguishing Between True Leases and
Secured Sales. 71-78. St. Johns Law Review. Vol. 63. No. 1. 1988. Also see, Uniform Commercial Code – General
Provisions. §§ 1-201; 1-203 (Lease Distinguished from a Security Interest).
[10] Paglia, 71-78;
Uniform Commercial Code – Leases, § 2A-103 (lease definition; “creation
of a security interest is not a lease”).