Hubert started a new business and began making money like he was printing it. And, in keeping with his new found wealth, he purchased a new and very expensive automobile on an installment plan. But then, Hubert was suddenly confronted by business reversals and he was suddenly unable to keep up with the installment payments on the apple of his eye -- his new car.
And, in due course, when employees of the finance company came around to repossess the pride and joy of Hubert's existence -- his flashy new automobile -- Hubert protested vigorously and refused to get out of the car when the finance company's employees towed it away.
Taking exception to the actions of the finance company's employees, Hubert sued the finance company for false imprisonment.
"I was kidnaped," he complained in court. "I was hauled away in my car against my will!"
"The guy's a 'wack-o'," responded the attorney for the finance company. "When he bought the car, he knew it could be repossessed for failure to make the installment payments. Consequently, his being hauled away with the car was his idea -- not ours!"
If you were the judge, would you make the finance company pay Hubert money damages for hauling him away against his will?
This is how the judge ruled: Yes! The judge held that the right to repossess may be carried out only in a peaceful manner without force. That by towing Hubert away against his will, concluded the judge, Hubert was unlawfully deprived of his freedom.
-- Based upon a 1938 Kentucky Court of Appeals decision