dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. I agree with Judge Conti and Judge Schnacke that consummation of Edna Jackson’s loan occurred on February 18, 1983. As I see it, Union Home Loans and Jackson were parties to a binding contract as of that date, and the source of the funds was irrelevant. Union was obligated to come up with the money, and it did. Accordingly, the right to rescind extended only until March 1, 1983.

Under the circumstances her attempt to cancel the transaction almost three years later on February 7, 1986 was almost three years too late.

Today, the Grants learn a painful lesson. They learn that a law designed by Congress to shield the unwary consumer can also be a sword with which a wily borrower can sever financial responsibilities, leaving a trusting lender holding an empty bag. If the majority is correct that Jackson’s arguments have technical merit — and I agree that the majority has made a strong case for its analysis — this result lends new meaning to the phrase “biting the hand that feeds you.” I do share one sentiment with the majority: their lack of enthusiasm for this result.

What fails to come through in the majority’s opinion is that Jackson was rescued from a trustees’ sale by Dennis Moore who went out of his way to save Jackson’s home. This is his business, so he gets no medals for his behavior, but neither he nor his assignees deserved what they got in return. Three years later, after enjoying the benefit of Mr. Moore’s helping hand, Edna Jackson ducked out on her financial obligations on the eve of the required final payment of $38,570. The Grants now also ■ know what a loophole is. It is possible for people to live up to moral obligations even if the cold letter of the law provides an *123 easy out, but this case does not provide a display of that virtue. I am reminded of the observation of H.L. Mencken who said, “Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is Justice.” Mencken, H.L., Prejudices: Third Series (1922). If this is what Congress intended when it set out to protect the unwary from “... home improvement racketeers who trick homeowners, particularly the poor ...,” 1 I would be quite surprised. I fear instead that what we have before us is an example of a well-intentioned law being used for questionable purposes.

. 114 Cong.Rec. 14388 (daily ed. May 22, 1968) (statement of Rep. Sullivan).