Need help in Florida

[legaleagle]

I like this provision only if it helps the consumer. Let them argue that yours or theirs applies because they were too stupid to file the case in time. You want VA or SD law? You got it. Why all of a sudden am I bound by the laws of some other state where I don't live? Of course the consumer doesn't know what a SOL is, and you can bet they don't know what VA or Utah law is either. And no credit card company explains it, either. They don't give you so much as a statute number. Gee, I wonder why. Talk about a failure to disclose.

[nascar]

Of course the consumer doesn't know what a SOL is, and you can bet they don't know what VA or Utah law is either. And no credit card company explains it, either. They don't give you so much as a statute number. Gee, I wonder why. Talk about a failure to disclose.

If you have time, you should read Merit Music Service, Inc. v. Sonneborn, particularly the quotation from Smith v. Humphries.

[legaleagle]

"I never signed a seven year contract calling for a minimum." But the fact remains she did sign a contract and furthermore, she left herself in such a position that she cannot actually say what was, or was not, in the contract for the simple reason that she did not read it, and the same applies to Mr. Sonneborn.

"Any person who comes into a Court of equity admitting that he can read, and showing that he has average intelligence, but asking the aid of the Court because he did not read a paper involved in the controversy, and was thereby imposed on, should be required to establish a very clear case before receiving the assistance of the Court in getting rid of such document. It is getting to be too common to have parties ask Courts to do what they could have done themselves, if they had exercised ordinary prudence, or, to state it in another way, to ask Courts to undo what they have done by reason of their own negligence or carelessness

Present when settlement talks began were the seller, the appellees, Julius W. Lichter, appellees' attorney,

This is something I've seen used countless times in mortgage cases. You are an intelligent person, you were presented with a contract, you were represented by counsel, and you signed. If you failed to read the contract, too bad for you. Take it up with the lawyer who was sitting next to you. I agree with that basic argument. I'm doing that one right now, in fact.

However, what I referred to in credit card cases is entirely different. Okay, you mail me a "cardmemeber agreement" that says I am to be bound by the laws of a state in which I do not reside. You, the credit card lender, having adequate opportunity and a legal duty to inform me of the terms you are setting forth, choose not to do so. You do not include ANY information whatsoever as to what that body of law entails. Why?

These CC agreements are not contracts, they are take it or leave it declarations written in terms no average person can understand. No applicant has an attorney sitting next to them when they sign up for a credit card, nor should they be expected to, or be expected to go to law school in Utah or Virginia or wherever the card company decided to locate themselves.

They NEVER give you so much as a statute number, but they will not hesitate to use those statutes against you. I would agree that you are responsible for what you sign, but these things are not signed and they do not reveal to the consumer what they are getting themselves into. That is a major difference. See my next post.

[legaleagle]

2. In Target National Bank v. Samanez, Case Nos. AR07-009777 and AR06-009418, 156 P.L.J. 76 (Allegheny Cty. C.P. December 26, 2007), the Court stated: “The law is clear that a cause of action based on an “account stated” is not proper when used to support a claim for a credit card debt.” Judge Wettick’s well-reasoned opinion meticulously and thoroughly analyzed the case law discussing the “account stated” action and ultimately found it to be inapplicable to consumer credit accounts. He stated in pertinent part: “failure to object cannot be construed as assent to pay the amount set forth in the statement unless the creditor can plead facts in addition to the failure to object . . . which show an express or implied agreement to pay the amount set forth in the invoice.” Judge Wettick summed up the case law and treatises by finding that “there cannot be an account stated without evidence showing an agreement (express or implied) that the defendant owes the amount set forth in the account.” Relying on the United States Government Accountability Office’s September 2006 report on the credit card industry and his own experience, Judge Wettick found that as a general, practical matter, most cardholders have not read the whole cardholder agreement, let alone any amendments, and would be unable to understand them if they did in fact read them, as many of these agreements are written at a 13th- to 15th-grade reading comprehension level. As a result, a cardholder does not know the intricacies of the writings governing the accounts, the calculations upon which the interest rate or fee schedule is based, and therefore, is not in a position to meaningfully or reasonably challenge the amounts claimed to be due in the monthly statements. In his conclusion, Judge Wettick held that, “f cardholders cannot be expected to know whether the information in the monthly statement accurately states what they owe, there cannot be an express or implied agreement that their silence means that they have agreed to the amount claimed is correct.”