v. Smith (In re BCE West, L.P.), 319 F.3d 1166, 1170-71 (9th Cir.2003) (“Our analysis under the general rules of statutory construction begins with the language of the statute itself.”) (citation omitted). The statute and implementing regulation, Regulation Z, both substantively contemplate mandatory tender at some procedural point. Regulation Z makes this completely mandatory as to money (which Plaintiff here has previously received in the form of a loan), while appearing to qualify the obligor’s return of property with an equitable option of returning the property’s reasonable value. The broader statutory scheme does not contradict this. Multiple cases have agreed. See, e.g., Merriman v. Beneficial Mortgage Co. of Kansas, Inc. (In re Merriman), 329 B.R. 710, 718 (Bankr.D.Kan. 2005) (<HOLDING>); Kratz, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86479 at *8,
holding that contingent obligations are not liabilities under section 752 holding that pmaprocess is not specific regulation triggering preemption under section section 360k holding that because the debtors obligations were not discharged section 524 did not apply recognizing the strong remedial purpose of tila and the obligation to construe tila  liberally in the consumers favor recognizing the reciprocal payment obligations of the lender and borrower under tila section 1635b and regulation z section 22623d