If your contract gives you permission to market the property as an "owner by contract" I have no morale issues with it. 

The nice part about it, if you're a borrower who discovers the loan you took was unlicensed, is that the maker becomes liable for repayment of the entire amount paid into the loan (principal and interest), in addition to the possible loss of the collateral interest in the property.The question to ask yourself, whenever someone says "you can probably get away with it if you limit the number of transactions you do" is... what are your morals?

Moral of the story, the evidence at large is these programs are not worth the money paid to attend and they are more damaging than knowing nothing.  

Moral of the story is Unfortunately along the way I lost it all twice. 

BUT would be concerned about the lack of professionalism in the contract and a moral obligation not to sell a house I do not own because of the current contract.

The moral: if the investment can't justify being bought with borrowed money (so that you still have more cash to leverage even more investments), is it such a good investment anyway?

Moral of the story, follow the direction you were given.  

If differentiating myself as a wholesaler is as easy as doing what I say I am going to do and letting good morals guide my decisions, I am in good shape.

So, he felt morally obligated to become the kind of expert he needed to be to make those victims whole and provide them the services they paid for.

As long as my fees are disclosed, (difficult not to do in our state, but a moral and ethical imperative in any case), our clients can make an informed decision as to whether or not they want to do business with us or another PM down the street.