Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'adhesion'.
Found 1 result
Firing back with an adhesion contract
cjtx2 posted a topic in Credit RepairI just started my credit repair journey after several years of letting it tank. There are several creditors who charged off different accounts, but continue to report new activity every month ($0 payment). A friend suggested to send a dispute to the data furnishers with a contract of adhesion. Ask them to remove all the negative activity that is re-aging a closed account. Then tell them that they will be entering into a new agreement, a sort of defamation contract, that specifically prohibits arbitration, that their consent will be indicated by their verifying or reporting information after the account was closed, and that by their action they agree to pay liquidated damages for each violation and each person who receives each false piece of information. The contract also adds more liquidated damages, court and attorney fees if they do not pay within a deadline after receiving demand for payment, and even more liquidated damages if they attempt to invoke arbitration. In case they do not agree with the terms, all they have to do is stop reporting and verifying any new activity. Good luck explaining why the contract is unacceptable, unless they intend to violate it. I am not a fan of adhesion contracts, but it is just the same way most banks used to add arbitration to their original contracts and many states where their headquarters are located approved those amendments and even made them a part of their laws. Does it make any sense? Could it work? Has anybody had any luck with this approach? The CRAs are next. The adhesion contract may be adapted as well, since they should know better than to allow data furnishers to re-age trade lines, but the timing must be right. So a dispute requesting deletion would be first, explaining that it is inaccurate to report both a closed account and new activity, even if the information is "verified" it is obviously inaccurate and that they would be willingly failing to investigate by allowing such a blatant contradiction. They may delete, but worst case scenario, I expect an automated response claiming they just report whatever the data furnisher tells them, implicitly admitting that they do not really do any research. Next step will be a Method of Verification (MOV) request. Any ideas or suggestions would be appreciated.