Ark. 374, 380-81, 135 S.W. 896, 898 (1911). It is clear from the statutory definition set forth above that an Arkansas check-casher pays, pursuant to a written agreement, an agreed-upon amount to its customer, less any fee charged pursuant to the Act, upon presentment of the customer’s check payable to the check-casher. In addition, that customer can “repurchase” his or her check within the agreed period of time. In other words, when the customer “repurchases” his or her check, he or she must pay the check-casher the amount of the check. We hold that such a transaction is a loan, as the check-casher is clearly loaning money to its customer for a fee with the expectation of repayment. See, e.g., Betts v. McKenzie Check Advance of Florida, LLC, 879 So. 2d 667 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) (<HOLDING>). b. Whether the fees charged constitute
holding that where resolution merely authorizes corporate officers to transfer assets no transfer takes place until an assignment is perfected holding that a loan transaction is a business practice under the ucl holding that fraudulent loan transaction exposed financial institutions to risk of loss even though loan was secured holding that where parties to an oral loan agreed that the loan would be repaid on demand the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the date plaintiff demanded repayment of the loan holding that there could be no question that what takes place in a deferredpresentment transaction is essentially an advance of money or a shortterm loan