|
|
Re: JR
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Credit Forum Index ]
Posted by JR
(205.188.209.12) on October 02, 2002 at 14:33:00:
In Reply to: Re: JR posted by Why Chat on October 02, 2002 at 08:29:32:
Yes, however, my point was that the transaction was the same as writing a check. Therefore, the BURDEN OF PROOF has been shifted to the consumer. THAT was the point of the post. If the consumer ignores this thinking, "well, I know that I didn't do anything wrong, they threatened and scared me and that wasn't right..." this collector MAY pursue legal remedies against them and NOW they are in a spot where they have to prove something that is very difficult to prove. The fact is that in many states, authorizing a payment to a pre-existing debt, to get the debt collector to stop bothering you is enough to be considered a valid transaction. In other words, the consumer got something in exchange for the payment. Therefore, if the state has a "bad check" law, it may apply and then the consumer will now have to prove duress, fraud, or illegal tactics, etc. to justify the stop payment/closed account (same thing). You should know as well as I do that fraud is a very difficult thing to prove. I thought I made it clear in the post that I did believe she made the payment due to their ILLEGAL THREATS. However, PROOF is difficult. The collector has a dishonered check and the consumer is in a "she said he said" situation. If my post scared them a little, that doesn't bother me. What would be bad is for them to not realize the POSSIBLE serious consequences of stopping a payment. As I said, it would be a mistake to ignore this.
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup
|