Re: its me debt collector:)
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Credit Forum Index ]
Posted by computerguy
(204.180.131.3) on July 13, 2004 at 08:02:33:
In Reply to: its me debt collector:) posted by DEBT COLLECTOR on July 13, 2004 at 07:46:03:
Hi debt collector! Here's something for you to think about regarding the pay your debt lecture. One of the largest mental hurdles each person must overcome internally is the moral issue that will be used against you relative to owing on the debt. Essentially it boils down to this, “You agreed to the terms of the credit card, you took advantage of the convenience of the credit card, if you do not pay you will have become unjustly enriched, and it is immoral to enter into an agreement, take advantage of it, and then argue against its enforcement.” To these essentially sound and morality based arguments consider the following: 1) If a party breaches its authority, by entering into an agreement that it knows it is not allowed by law to execute, is it moral to allow that party to enforce the agreement?
2) Is it moral to force a person to pay on a credit card bill, when that person did not know that the bank did not have the legal authority to issue credit or to become surety?
3) Is it moral for a bank to place a negative mark on your credit report, when they did not have the authority to enter into the agreement in the first place, and that any deficit in payment has been insured by a third party insurance company? In addition to these three points, consider also that moral arguments (arguments based in equity), versus legal arguments (arguments based in law), are only upheld if the party seeking to enforce the agreement comes to the court with “clean hands.” This concept is known as the clean hands doctrine. What this doctrine means is that if a bank desires to enforce an agreement based on equity (morality), then they must have acted equitable (moral). In the case of credit, if the banks know that the law prevents them from loaning credit (there is over a hundred years of case law on this point) and they do it anyway, then they simply do not have clean hands, and cannot argue their case in equity. Therefore they must argue in law. Meanwhile, the law prevents them from loaning credit! The next question to consider is, if banks in fact do not have the authority to enter into credit lending agreements, why do they persist? This is a tougher question to answer. At this time the only logic I can see is that of the thousands of cards routinely issued, only a few are going to dispute the validity of the bank’s authority. And of these, third party insurance covers the risk.
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup
|
