AdhesionContract

Members
  • Content Count

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About AdhesionContract

  • Rank
    Newbie

core_pfieldgroups_99

  • Biography
    Film and Video camera and editing, regional EMMY winner
  • Interests
    blogging, Gardening, walking
  • Occupation
    CareGiver

Profile Fields

  • Location
    California
  1. I agree, and yet...I think it can become defeatist thinking to put too much energy into the power the other side may have, no? I need to allocate my resources towards winning what I believe to be a logical and fair course, no just for me, but for 90% of all credit card defaults that have occurred because credit card companies hedged the very insurance product that consumers could have used to protect themselves during a time of dire circumstances. However, it does sound like I should use my video background to start making some videos to help build consensus. Unfortunately, I don't know if I'll have the time between CareGiving, yard work, house work, and so on.
  2. Hi, I clicked on the link it was not longer good. Is there a new link?
  3. On page three of this topic I took each of your responses and made them a new post and I responded to them. Credit Card companies cannot commit unethical acts without at least making the consumer aware of what they are doing. Omission is not a right in a credit card adhesion contract. Obviously everything omitted cannot be included, but reasonable tenets that a reasonable person would expect to be addressed, if not addressed, should be admitted to in the contract, otherwise abusive programs such as unregulated credit card insurance protection programs are rammed down the throat of the consumer, and in turn that prevents the consumer from protecting themselves in times of dire circumstances.
  4. Ok, so you are saying that adhesion contractors can hide unfavorable aspects of their contract from a consumer? Is that reasonable? Does the reasonable person, who intends on honoring the contract they viewed, expect such passive aggressive tendencies from the credit card company, to be hidden from their view? How is that reasonable? And as I mentioned above, in Massachusetts, consumers must sign off on what they are NOT BUYING when they pre-purchase funeral products. The reason this is done is because there can be as many different expenses directly linked to the burial of a person, yet most people in their minds may only see about five or six. (The casket, the hearse, the church service, flowers, and death certificate and burial). They may not be aware of ambulance, embalming charges, freezing charges, make-up, maintenance charges, limousine, police for the procession. So Massachusetts requires the person buying funeral products ahead of time to be advised of additional products they might need at the time of death. In the case of the reasonable credit card consumer, it would make sense to know what would happen if they experience a dire circumstance. Credit Card Companies purposely don't want to reveal the warts of their policy because they will lose business or have to modify their policies to a more acceptable standard, and in a contract adhesion situation, that is unacceptable. Or, is there a court precedent that allows credit card companies to hide reasonable disclosure from their customers?
  5. I don't think you directly responded to this point. I probably should have added, "unregulated" overpriced credit protection / debt suspension insurance up above. What if the reason credit protection insurance was allowed to slip through the regulation guidelines unchecked 20 years ago was nothing more than some unethical regulators 20 years ago, before the Internet was even here, were simply bribed? And 20 years later, people are still arguing over the efficacy and legality of unregulated, highly overpriced credit protection / debt suspension insurance because some schlubs 20 years earlier were bribed to look the other way? Why else would any state regulator have allowed unregulated credit protection insurance to go unsanctioned for the past 20 years? Credit Protection that was so unfair, immoral, illegally priced, that 20 years later the consumer protection financial protection bureau has now levied ONE BILLION DOLLARS IN FINES against this credit protection program.
  6. My point is, 2% monthly minimum payments are acknowledged as being defective by both the department of justice and the federal reserve. When I combine those two facts with the fact that unregulated credit protection and debt suspension insurance is wildly overpriced, this should give cause for a judge to step in, not to modify the amount owed at the time the default occurred, but to modify the payment arrangements that are to follow, and to do it without declaring a breach of contract. Instead, the judge states, "my hands are tied". BS, a judges hands are not tied if the default was due to specific policies practiced by the the party declaring the default. Should I quote myself to give more of an air of authenticity, or is that last point logical enough that few would disagree?
  7. Now we can expose the additional credit card scam. The credit card companies make cute cuddly television commercials, but in real life, they are one of the biggest aholes on the planet. Again, I too have no problem that credit card companies appear to love being aholes. But lets imagine what would happen if credit card companies were required to state on their credit card agreements...Crapital One credit card doesn't care if anything bad happens to you, even if you were not at fault, we (the credit card companies), expect at least a 2% monthly minimum payment each and every month or we will declare you in default, no ifs and or buts. Not too good for public relations, is that? And on top of that, lack of disclosure regarding the "warts" hinders true marketplace competition because brand B credit card may decide they don't want to reveal such a horrible aspect about their own policies, so they are going to actually offer an AFFORDABLE debt suspension insurance policy that protects people in times of dire circumstances, and then advertise it to the public. If credit cards were deemed adhesion contracts, credit card companies would suddenly have a whole new slew of REASONABLE tools in which to compete with each other with, and the consumer would benefit. The credit card companies who are able to disclose the least amount of annoying gotcha's, wins. Whereas the way it stands now, THEY ALL WIN by disclosing nothing, because judges won't recognize that credit card agreements are adhesion contracts.
  8. Again, I agree with you, if this was a contract between two consenting adults on equal standing. However, this is an adhesion contract situation in which the signee will find virtually the same terms where ever they go. It is also pretty much a given that without any type of credit card purchases, people are viewed suspiciously or in an untrustworthy manner because they have no credit history. So when the judge says a consumer has a choice, therefore credit cards are not adhesion contracts, it's not true and an unrealistic statement as well. I agree that even if credit cards are called adhesion contracts, the credit card company still has the right to do unsympathetic things, my point is they just need to DISCLOSE THEM in their adhesion contract to the consumer before the consumer signs the contract. Instead, the credit card companies hide the unpopular aspects from the consumer, and I define unpopular to mean, surprisingly nasty, anti reality policies such as not caring that people can find themselves in a dire circumstance and insisting that all payment terms can never be changed AND that there will be no regulated credit protection/debt suspension insurance product to protect them either. There is precedent. In Massachusetts, there are specific funeral adhesion contract guidelines that actually require the consumer to sign off on what they ARE NOT buying. That is core to my point. Credit Card Companies can pretty much offer whatever they want within reason, however, if they choose to be jerks about real life situations that eventually will come up, then the consumer should sign off that they know about the credit card company's "jerkiness" before they sign up for the credit card. Because credit card companies have gotten away with withholding the bad stuff from the consumer, it then emboldened them to charge way too much money on unregulated credit protection insurance, leaving consumers with no way to protect themselves in times of dire circumstances.
  9. It's actually very important because it shows I made a good faith attempt to keep the account from defaulting. Keep in mind, the BEST WAY to prevent the default or breach of contract, would have been through a fairly priced credit protection / debt suspension regulated insurance program, which did not exist. Your arguments, if valid, are only valid because there was no credible debt suspension insurance in place. Their overpriced credit protection insurance program became a hedge to specifically prevent their customers, myself included, from being responsible in times of dire circumstances.
  10. Again, I agree with your point. My point is that a reasonable person expects credit card companies to not add to their woes during a time of dire cirucumstancers and at the very least would offer a reasonably priced credit protection / debt suspension insurance program.... If however, Credit Card companies refuse to be reasonable or compassionate, that is their right, but in an adhesion contract, their unreasonableness should be highlighted so the consumer can then make an informed decision. What is that famous saying, "I don't agree with what you are saying, but I will fight for your right to say it" In this instance, I don't agree with the credit card companies dire circumstances position, but I do believe that in an adhesion contract situation, the credit card companies should be saying what their unreasonable policy positions are. Allowing Credit Card Companies to profit by hiding the unreasonable aspects of their policies is no different than allowing cigarette companies to not put a warning on their cigarette packages. Oh wait, cigarette companies do put warnigs on their cigarette packages. And if we think, there is no correlation between cigarette smoking and credit cards, that just becomes proof of what happens when credit card companies do not have to put any warnings on their products, we automatically assume they are a safer, better product. Yet the evidence is there that credit card payments of 2% are a hazard that can eventually lead to the loss of a home or unemployability. The conclusion is, credit card companies enjoy the benefits of an adhesion contract, but with those benefits should come simple declarations so the consumer can make a truly informed decision.
  11. I agree with what a lot of what you wrote. Where I disagree is if credit cards are adhesion contracts, then it becomes ambiguous to have such an "immoral" position, and then HIDE that immoral position by not revealing it in the contract. Have an immoral if they so desire, but then don't hide it, reveal it. Example, look at the Capital One credit card commercials. They are sickeningly cute and adorable, (the ones with Jimmy Fallon and the baby). A reasonable person watching those commercials would not associate Capital One with basically not giving a damn when it comes to a customer experiencing dire circumstances and actually wanting to harm their credit rating and future ability to get work. Secondly, your insurance example also makes my point, the credit protection insurance was so overpriced it provided a hedge against the consumer and myself not being able to purchase it. When your REGULATED insurance company cut a check for one homeowner but not the next, at least both homeowners had access to similarly and reasonably fairly priced products. When credit card customers stand in court, they never had the opportunity to purchase REGULATED and fairly priced credit protection insurance, and in an adhesion contract situation, that seems very unfair.
  12. short answer, You have just proved my point that the Insurance company was using the vastly overpriced credit insurance product as a HEDGE so that consumers can't fight them in court later on. Longer answer below. Lets take your scenario of "I bought the credit protection insurance product for two years then quit" and pretend it was mine and I was presenting it to you here now. I think your response could then be that I became upset that I did not use the insurance product during the two years I was paying for it so I stopped to save the money, now a few years later, I need the protection, and am upset I quit buying it. And as I previously wrote, the credit protection insurance product was so overpriced that it would have been foolish to purchase, and I'll add now, would have actually led to a default much sooner in time. Ultimately, this is simply debt suspension insurance. So if a consumer needs the insurance, they are not actually getting a check back, just a "raincheck" for that month. They still owe all the money they owed before, but the monthly payment arrangement is either delayed, or reduced. So such a debt suspension insurance product could have literally been charging 3 to 5 cents a month per hundred dollars rather than the 99 cents per month that was being charged. For the record, I did buy credit protection insurance once, for one month. When I saw the pricing structure in my billing statement, I knew it was beyond the rip off / price gouging stage. I have already mentioned that back in 2007 I created a rip off report on Credit Protection insurance that has now been vindicated by the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau fining the credit card companies close to a billion dollars. Why would should I keep buying a product once I see how unfairly priced it is?
  13. Your marine background is uncalled for in this particular situation. The insult towards me was delivered well before I made my list of defenses known. I was trying to contact ADM to get the comment removed simply so the thread did not deteriorate from that point on. So, I'm over it, if you all are, then we can proceed.
  14. So when I was preparing my response in September, I came across Discovery about the Credit Protection Insurance program that I had written about on a website five years ago. I felt I now had an opportunity for a counterclaim, but I could not get the counter claim done until the day of my trial. I filed a motion, NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF... and I used case law to show cause that I could submit it late. The judge would not even look at it.
  15. For the record, I didn't use the card the final 18 months I was making payments. I was legitimately trying to pay down the card. When I had exhausted my savings, and could not work because I was CareGiving for first two parents, then my remaining parent, I called and told them before I was ever even late. They had no way to work with me, other than to tell me to keep paying my bill as described in the monthly billing. I recorded the phone call. They did not sue me right away, but nothing changed regarding my CareGiving situation either. I did not pay for the Credit Protection Insurance because when I realized it was a gross rip off, I could not justify paying for it, nor could I afford it. In essence, the Credit Card Companies were cramming five years worth of coverage in about 3 to 5 months of payments, but then only offering coverage for the 3 to 5 months while the payments were being made. It truly is a grossly overpriced product, the pay out ratio versus premiums charged might be as small as 1% to 5% versus what they take in in premiums. However, when they did sue me, the servicing agent lied and said they subserved someone who does not even exist. I was able to get a paralegal company with an attorney to file a motion to vacate and I won. However, there were some filing mistakes made and the cost to me in time was excessive. I have since been false subserved again on another similar matter. The false subservice actually affected my ability to get my filing in on time, however I know the court does not care about such trivialities.