Jump to content

you won't believe what i got on Discover Card

Recommended Posts

I'm in the process of fighting Discover and I realize that their attorney has written a book about debt collecting practicing. So i Have the inside scoop to what they do what they don't like to see defendants do...

Now I will only briefly mention a little of what I found.

1. They state USC 75-2-201 which requires a contract for the sale of good over the amount of $400 be in Writing

2.They also state that the court will look at the four corners of the contract.


Then the statue of Fraud kicks in as a defense

He is what i read form a state supreme court decision:

Sec. 75-2-201 (1981). Generally, a contract for the sale of goods for $500 or more is not enforceable unless there is some writing. Xxxx.Code Ann. Sec. 75-2-201(1). "A writing must meet three requirements to satisfy the statute of frauds: 1) the writing must be sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has been made between the parties, 2) the writing must be signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought, and 3) the writing must specify a quantity." Migerobe, Inc. v. Certina USA, Inc., 924 F.2d 1330, 1333 (5th Cir.1991) (internal quotations and citations omitted). "The statute of frauds can be met through the integration of several documents, each of which alone might not be sufficient to meet these three requirements." Id. A contract that does not meet the three requirements but is valid in other respects is enforceable "if the party against whom enforcement is sought admits in his pleading, testimony or otherwise that a contract for sale was made." Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 75-2-201(3)(B). Further, a contract that does not satisfy the statute of frauds is nevertheless enforceable "with respect to goods for which payment has been made and accepted or which have been received and accepted."

Now seeing that I have case law from my state and word from their own attorney and Discover is filing a for a motion summary judgement, i would like someone information on whether they think i should pursue the fraud statue as a mean to get the upper hand.

I have already been thru the summon/ answer-response

I began the discover and they have not given me a written document that is meeting the requirement set forth in 75-2-201. Like showing my signature, not to add the fact that the advidat is lacking foundation... I know this sound crazy but i got this information for the horses own mouth. I also need so help looking up some of the cases that they mention. It appears they keep the written word very vauge so only a lawyer could clearly understand it but i'm sure someone here can dissect it...

PLease help

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest usctrojanalum

Are credit card companies suing under goods sold and delivered causes of action? That would be really strange because a) CC companies have not sold or delivered any goods and B) the UCC would apply

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In CA, they tend to use the CA Judicial Council Forms and they have a box for goods and wares delivered. Some law firms routinely check this box even though they're suing for cc debt. I have seen ONE motion for summary adjudication where that cause of action was striken so it is totally irrelevant but many of them put anything down to see what will stick!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.