If JDB buys debt: "jdb is barred from seeking damages"

[ADSOFT]

Plaintiff admits to purchasing the defaulted debt allegedly owned by the Defendant, causing Plaintiff's injury to its own self, therefore Plaintiff is barred from seeking relief for damages.

I see this statement alot as a defense in some court templates. What does this mean?

Does it mean that the JDB cannot sue for more than they purchased the debt for?

I guess my question is, how does the above statement limit the plantiff for damages?

[rikkivs]

I think the statement is an affirmative defense to a specific cause of action but I am not sure it will win a case for the Defendant...As to using the logic that the JDB purchased the debt for pennies on the dollar then tried to bill you for the full amount being unethical there is the affirmative defense of unjust enrichment. Why should you pay them more for the debt than they paid for it?

I can tell you're doing research and trying to get this together. What causes of action did they sue you for and how did you answer the complaint? When is the first case management conference?

[MG05]

If you frame your defense around the fact that the JDB is not a creditor but a speculative investor and go into detail about the ARM business you can be successful. Your initial argument always must be unjust enrichment and comparative negligence and work your case like that. Compare it to buying a car from a junk yard … you can’t expect the buyer to get full value for a damaged item. They are out what they paid and force discovery … demand an in camera inspection of documents if they come up with any reasons they can’t provide the volume of debt purchase, the face value amount and the cost they actually paid. This is why arbitration or jury trials are a must …

[ADSOFT]

I have to look up unjust enrichment as it applies to assinged debts. I know what unjust enrichment is from a defendents point of view, but from a plantiff that purchases a good for less than full value, I'm not sure.

Imagine if you bought a car that was worth $10,000 for $5000, and someone destroyed it? Can you sue for $10,000 or are you only entitled to $5,000?

I guess there should be some case law on the results of defendents limiting damages to the amount that plantiff paid for the debt?

MGO5, question.

What is the ARM business?

[nascar]

I see this statement alot as a defense in some court templates. What does this mean?

Does it mean that the JDB cannot sue for more than they purchased the debt for?

I guess my question is, how does the above statement limit the plantiff for damages?

This is internet babble. One of the oldest legal sayings out there with respect to assignment is, "the assignee steps into the shoes of the assignor." For our purposes, that defense just does not apply.

[nascar]

Imagine if you bought a car that was worth $10,000 for $5000, and someone destroyed it? Can you sue for $10,000 or are you only entitled to $5,000?

In this type situation, the injured party will generally be entitled to replacement value.