|
|
Re: Can't post on this month..Please answer this for me, whychat, lady, keysor
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Credit Forum Index ]
Posted by ikya (65.45.168.4) on April 25, 2003 at 13:35:00:
In Reply to: Re: Can't post on this month..Please answer this for me, whychat, lady, keysor posted by LadynRed on April 25, 2003 at 10:24:42:
Lady, This has been bothering me for awhile. I keep hearing people say that you can't stop a CA from selling the rest of the debt. The way I see it, a settlement, is just that, a settlement (where parties agree to certain terms and conditions, whatever they may be). The CA can certainly waive his rights to sell the remaining debt, IF THEY WANT TO. Just as you and I could do the same, if that is part of the settlement. If Joe owes me $500.00 and we both agree that if I pay him $400.00 now, in exchange, the debt will be paid in full and the remaining balance will not be resold, I don't understand why that would not be legally binding. After all, the CA could have just said "NO" to the conditions. Obviously, we can't force the CA to accept the settlement. The CA can refuse the settlement offer, just as we can if he wants to. However, if he agrees to all of the conditions of the settlement (whatever they may be), then why wouldn't it stand legally? After all, no one is forcing him to agree, and he can simply say, no to the agreement. Now, if you and the CA simply agreed to settle for less money, and didn't add the condition that the remaining debt could not be resold, then yes, the CA would legally be able to sell the remaining debt. Do you see where I'm coming from? Give me your thoughts on this, because I don't understand why a written agreement/contract/settlement, signed by both parties, of their own free will, wouldn't be legally binding.
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup
|
