JM10101's bebuttal ;)

Posted by jm10101 (198.80.153.10) on December 11, 2002 at 12:31:16:

In Reply to: Re: RMA - validation requirements JM10101 posted by LadynRed on December 10, 2002 at 17:16:34:

LadyinRed - I'm enjoying our exchange, so don't take this the wrong way...

Wollman Letter:
The opinion, as you've noted, is that an itemization is not enough. The sentence preceding the one you quoted is: "it is important that the verification of the identity of the consumer and the amount of the debt be obtained directly from the creditor. In tryin2's case, the CA produced an itemized list of charges and several signed sales receipts. I assume the itemized list includes the items shown on the receipts + other charges to bring it up the the total they request [ otherwise, it may all be garbage ]. In this case, the signature on the receipts, if their validity is not in dispute, verifies the connection between the consumer and the debt. If the receipts are not in dispute, then this verification come from the original creditor. And if the receipts are not in dispute, then all the late charges and other charges could possibly be substantiated, but it may be difficult without a contract. So rather than Wollman working in tryin2's favor, I read it as working against him/her.

As for Spears, it basically requires some accounting to go along with the verification evidence that was produced by the CA. In my hypothetical scenario above, the CA has produced an accounting of charges and fees based on the sales receipts. If it's actually the case, then I think they have fulfilled the requirements outlined in Spears.

But this is all somewhat hypothetical, as neither of us know what was on the itemized list and if the sales receipts were actually his/hers. Maybe tryin2 will tell us...

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup