And speaking of successor in interests ... is it the person entitlted to enforce as per the non negotiable instrument or is it the security /trust owners holding the negotiable REIT

a FEW things hit me odd about this article, first and foremost it seems that the news piece is to alert those who have had to deal with bank mergers, now having to find like detective the true person entitled to enforce. With ID entity theft rampant, giving money or personal information to someone who claims yet has no evidence to back up the assertion is risky. Second, is the term § 2-302. Unconscionable contract or Clause. (1) If the court as a matter of law finds the contractor any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result. (2) When it is claimed or appears to the court that the contractor any clause thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose and effect to aid the court in making the determination. If the bank, or financial institution was about to be merged it would behoove them to alert possible customers of their financial products. This is apparent in both TLA and RESPA but rarely occurs. In the case of Horn vs. Wells Fargo, the court did ask the financial institution to affirm name change and jurisdiction in standing Most commercial agreements contain a clause stating that the contract is binding upon and for the benefit of "successors." What does the word "successors" mean? Who are "successors"? Do those who enter into the contract know who the successors are?