PER CURIAM:
The district court correctly held that the transaction which formed the basis of plaintiff-appellant's claim in this action was not covered by the Consumer Leasing Act of 1976 ( 15 U.S.C. § 1667) and section 226.15 of Regulation Z ( 12 C.F.R. § 226.15), or the Truth-in-Lending Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.) and section 226.8 of Regulation Z ( 12 C.F.R. § 226.8).
The judgment appealed from is
AFFIRMED.