AdhesionContract

Adhesion Contract position thrown out by Judge in Chambers, what is the precedent?

Recommended Posts

Yes, I just don't know what it is I am appealing, or how to do it. I did file in proper so I know how to do the basic filing, but knowing the various motions is more difficult.

Although I do have a 30 day membership at a site that should be able to help me with that issue.

I have the most post trial experience of the non lawyers here. I am willing to help but I think that there are better ways that have some precedent to accomplish what you want to do. Maybe if you had some of these other arguments to coalesce the adhesion status of the contract.

Trying to get the other uncontested defaults overturned runs afoul of some statute of limitations and other issues such as litigation priviledge, and finality of rulings.

Maybe it would be best if everyone refresh themselves on the applicable statutes for the three motions. Another area you can try is the collateral attack on judgement. It is in witkins Actions on appeal. You have to go to the law library.

First off also lets all stop puffing our chests out and help to see if this issue has been handled anywhere in the country. If it is another club in our litigation bag then we would be remiss not to help. So everyone Beefing say your sorry to each other and lets give this issue that is tentative at least the same consideration we gave the :roll: Securitization :roll: debacle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one problem with communication that is occurring here is that I don't have to argue against anything the credit card company has done, but I CAN argue that they should include certain policy positions in their credit card adhesion contract that are presently hidden.

For instance, a credit card company does not have to have negotiate without first requiring a default, however, in a credit card adhesion contract they MUST reveal that to the unknowing consumer prior to there being an agreement, whereas in a more standard contract they do not have to reveal that.

Edited by AdhesionContract

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly defined in the beginning. What would make them unconscionable would be the changes in terms that come later. Also the failure to arbitrateis a good reason because the court would lack jurisdiction over you to this point.

I think what we all really need to know is what happened because by having alot of eyes on it there might be a better and more pallatable reason for the court, because if he overturns the large bank with a litigation budget bigger than the state of california's will kick it up to appeal where the justices are all moony eyed for the banks.

Was this an Original creditor ie (National Bank, Credit Union, account originator or an assignee ie(sold debt, collections agency)?

Did they properly serve you? Personally or substitute service.

Did they submit a default package? What was in it?

Was it an employee of the bank or was it some other companies employee that verified the complaint and default CCP585 declaration.

How long ago?

I want everyone to be clear about one thing, the JUDGE BELIEVES THAT CREDIT CARDS ARE NOT ADHESION CONTRACTS, and did NOT want to hear any arguments that could change their mind.

The reason for this level of unreasonableness is most likely related to, if I were to convince the judge that credit cards are adhesion contracts, and then come up with a substantively unconscionable argument that has merit, the judge might have to not only declare the debt frozen with no more interest rates penalties or fees added on, but also do the same to prior verdicts if my argument ALSO applies to others who the judge has already declared to be in default.

What judge wants to open a door that could lead to such a huge consequence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have the most post trial experience of the non lawyers here. I am willing to help but I think that there are better ways that have some precedent to accomplish what you want to do. Maybe if you had some of these other arguments to coalesce the adhesion status of the contract.

Trying to get the other uncontested defaults overturned runs afoul of some statute of limitations and other issues such as litigation priviledge, and finality of rulings.

Maybe it would be best if everyone refresh themselves on the applicable statutes for the three motions. Another area you can try is the collateral attack on judgement. It is in witkins Actions on appeal. You have to go to the law library.

First off also lets all stop puffing our chests out and help to see if this issue has been handled anywhere in the country. If it is another club in our litigation bag then we would be remiss not to help. So everyone Beefing say your sorry to each other and lets give this issue that is tentative at least the same consideration we gave the :roll: Securitization :roll: debacle.

Here are my arguments.

Credit Card Company has no dire circumstances provision, which is ok, but they need to state that in their contract, otherwise, they are profiting by getting contract agreements from customers who assume they are reasonable. Example, it is unreasonable for a credit card company to not acknowledge dire circumstances scenarios such as a natural disaster, loss of home due to fire, medical emergency, CareGiving for a family member that results in the person no longer being able to work (doctors note would be necessary), identify theft, loss of job...

I would argue that there are 10 dire circumstances situations where a consumer should be allowed to either suspend their debt, or lower their payments based on their new income level. If the credit card company disagrees with that stance, that is fine, BUT THEY MUST REVEAL that BEFORE I sign their agreement.

No debt restructuring without a default first. This is HUGE. Most reasonable people just assume that if a Dire Circumstance occurs in their lives, the credit card companies would not try and make their lives worse by defaulting on them.

I offered a debt instrument while my account was still in good standing The debt instrument was for equal to or more than what a court could garnish from me based on my lowered income when I became a CareGiver. The credit card company had no way to consider my offer unless they first declared a default on me. Again, I'm fine with that policy, but put it in writing on the contract so I can see it before I sign anything.

Credit Card Companies should not additionally profit off of CareGivers with ongoing penalties, fees and interest rate charges if the customer has good faith exhausted their financial resources first.

2% monthly minimum payment structures are a KNOWN defect, Credit Card companies know this and still pushed their product. Both the Department of Justice and the Federal reserve have acknowledged that a 2% monthly minimum credit card payment is defective and needs to be raised, but they both acknowledge it can no longer be done because there is too much consumer debt in the U.S..

Again, it's actually ok that credit cards sell a purposely defective product, but because they know this, THEY MUST SHARE THIS INFORMATION WITH THEIR CUSTOMERS before the customer signs their adhesion contract. The analogy I give is cigarette packs and 2% monthly minimum payments are both lethal, cigarettes provide a warning on their packs, credit cards do not, and should.

Over Priced Credit Protection Insurance was used as a hedge to prevent customers from being responsible in the event they had a dire circumstance and could not pay their monthly bill. "Defaulters" were denied the most reasonable option to keep their account in good standing by charging 20 to 30 times more than what they could have reasonably charged.

The Merging of a regulated product (credit cards), with an unregulated product (credit protection), should not be allowed in an credit card adhesion situation. Example, Can a new car be sold as new with an unregulated tire product on the rims?

conclusion, the HIDING of all unfavorable company policies on an adhesion contract is unacceptable and should give the court cause to adjust the agreement in a reasonable manner.

Edited by AdhesionContract

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more. Intentional false subservice.

A legal service is needed before a second service can be sent through the mail. If the first service is falsely done, then that makes the second service through the mail, mail fraud, whether intentional or not.

The service company actually made up a generic description of a person who has never existed or even visited where I live and claimed that person was sub served. The court originally had a default and waived it when I reported the false service.

However, I think the judge should have granted me latitude since the case is pinioned on a false service and a second service done fraudulently through the mail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that you tried to offer them a small amount per month but where they may have strayed was deviating from the terms by suing? If you haven't been sued yet then you have a good head start on winning against an OC it can be done. When you tried to negotiate a smaller payment they should have at least accepted the payment. but they charged even higher interest. The OC can show aquiescence to the terms if you used the card and can show regular course of dealings. what the most damaging thing would be is if you used the card with the higher fees and penalties.

The contract unconscionability has come into play as far as the penalty fees being non disclosed to you in a couple fed cases. So getting the fees stripped down to pre default levels has been tried also before I will look this week and see if I saved them from lexis but the courts have said they can really do nothing if the card was used after default because of implied waiver of unconscionability due to use of the card with the fees in place.

Aha, now I see where you have strayed off course. I wasn't trying to void the contract. I was trying to simply have the debt recognized for the amount it was when the last payment was made, with no more penalties, fees or interest rate charges tacked on, and since I made a debt instrument offer before I was ever in default, there was no reason for the court to levy any additional action since my offer was a good faith offer based on present income level.

I offered a debt instrument before I was ever in default, this becomes a second argument to bring up, if the credit card company will not negotiate without a default first being declared, that also must be stated in the contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think it's relevant if I admit to anything, I'm using discovery to point out that the insurance companies created a hedge insurance product to block their customers from properly protecting themselves if they had a dire circumstance that prevented them from paying their monthly bill.

If I work somewhere and the boss places a tree in the middle of the road that makes me late to work, I can admit to being late without losing my ability to defend that the lateness was caused by the boss.

If you paid for credit protection to cover the loss on the default of the account couldn't you submit a claim for indemnity from the insurance company. If they were making you pay for there credit default swap that is a "horse of a different color" and might even be a violation of some statutes because it forced you to pay something that was supposed to be paid by them and by paying that instead of the money being applied to the balance it would force a debtor to incur costs of collection of a debt.

The way I see it there are lots of things but you are trying to reduce the debt. The judges sticking point is the debt has already been reduced to a judgment to vacate the judgment and allow relitigation of the case he has to follow very specific statutes and precedents to allow argument and a trial. The adhesion contract might work as a cross complaint cause of action but not a reason to vacate the judgment which has to be for jurisdictional, inadvertance, failure to serve process, and mistake of your attorney.

So I believe to get your argument into the game you have to seek relief of the default judgment. That is the toughest thing to do in the most populated counties in California.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by AdhesionContract

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Two things come to mind.

1. You lack standing to argue this because you did not buy it. If you would have bought it and paid for it, for let's say two years, and then came to your senses, I could maybe see some standing you would have.

2. I worked insurance, auto, for ten years. There were times we did not want the business so we priced ourselves out of the market. It was basically if you are dumb enough to buy it, we'll sell it to you.

For the record, credit insurance is a horrible rip off. However, it appears you knew and know that. You made the right choice and did not buy it, which is smart.

I just don't see how you can now argue that you wanted it but could not afford it and if you could have afford it you now have a covered loss.

That sounds to me like all the people that would call from the side of the road and want to add roadside assistance because they were broken down and then use the coverage immediately, but did not want to pay for the coverage on the front end.

"No debt restructuring without a default first. This is HUGE. Most reasonable people just assume that if a Dire Circumstance occurs in their lives, the credit card companies would not try and make their lives worse by defaulting on them."

True, but not to sound harsh, but what right does anybody have to restructuring due to dire circumstances? I know of none. It makes sense they would and it crappy not to, but what obligation do they have and what right does the consumer have to this? None I know of, other than the "do right rule" which is morally correct but has no legal backing.

If they want to restructure they can do so if and when they want, along with choosing the circumstances. As long as they don't base their decisions on race, sex, religion, etc...... they can do what they want when it comes to restructuring.

This is simple contract law. Unless the contract has a provision then they are not bound by the "do right rule" which is unfortunate.

I mean the family who's house was blown away by a tornado and their car is upside down in a tree that could not afford insurance is standing in the yard ten feet away from me while I'm cutting a 10K emergency check for their neighbor that could afford coverage. The look on the uninsured face is horrible, but nothing I can do.

Could I go over there and cut them a check? I guess so, but of course I'm not going to. It sucks they could not afford coverage and are now left to try and get money from the FEMA and the government.

On a common sense note, do you really blame them for not restructuring when the account is not in default (and default can and does mean even one day late)? Everybody and their dog would be calling if you could give a hard luck story and get them to restructure.

It's the first thing the debt consilidation people tell you (which I don't like those company's at all, for the record), stop paying right now. You have to get behind and then they will work with you. Again, it's their right and it would make no sense to start cutting deals to people that are not late. That is just shooting ones self in the foot. This is not something, by law unless in the contract they have to, they must tell you. They don't have to tell you ever type of situation or business decision that might arise and how they might or will handle it.

"I would argue that there are 10 dire circumstances situations where a consumer should be allowed to either suspend their debt, or lower their payments based on their new income level. If the credit card company disagrees with that stance, that is fine, BUT THEY MUST REVEAL that BEFORE I sign their agreement."

Says who? Nobody or no court, that's the problem. I agree 100% with you on this, but you state they must reveal this as it is some well established case law out there when there is none. It's like telling a debt collector they must send you every credit card statement as part of debt validation. Sounds good and sounds reasonable, but backed by no law or court.

"I offered a debt instrument while my account was still in good standing The debt instrument was for equal to or more than what a court could garnish from me based on my lowered income when I became a CareGiver."

Well my response would be, one, speculation and two, so what? What if you won the lottery the next day or heaven forbid the person you were caring for died. You're asking them, no telling them they have to, make a permanent decision on your account when you are facing a situation that could be temporary and you're speculating.

This argument, in my opinion, is one of the worst. Again, everybody and their dog would be flooding them with hard luck stories. Or if somebody had 20K in debt and was working their tail off, but knew if they just got in a situation where they could not work as hard and still be paying the same toward the 20K, how many people would do that. By the way, I believe you about your situation, but it has no legal backing.

Credit Card Companies should not additionally profit off of CareGivers with ongoing penalties, fees and interest rate charges if the customer has good faith exhausted their financial resources first.

I agree 100% and it falls under the that sucks really sucks for them to do that category. It's unfair for them to do that, but hardly rises to the extreme level of a court stepping in and making them do the right thing morally.

2% monthly minimum payment structures are a KNOWN defect, Credit Card companies know this and still pushed their product. Both the Department of Justice and the Federal reserve have acknowledged that a 2% monthly minimum credit card payment is defective and needs to be raised, but they both acknowledge it can no longer be done because there is too much consumer debt in the U.S..

Right, so the issue has been addressed. So you want a state court judge to step in and take on the Dept of Justice and the Federal Reserve?

The Merging of a regulated product (credit cards), with an unregulated product (credit protection), should not be allowed in an credit card adhesion situation.

A contract of adhesion just means that if there is ambiguity or basically a tie, it's ruled in the favor of the party that did not draw up the contract. Again, your not making a contract of adhesion argument but more of a throw out the contract type argument.

Example, Can a new car be sold as new with an unregulated tire product on the rims?

"conclusion, the HIDING of all unfavorable company policies on an adhesion contract is unacceptable and should give the court cause to adjust the agreement in a reasonable manner."

Again, you're assuming there is a duty to not hide unfavorable company policy and there is not. Now if there is ambiguity, you've got em. But nothing you described above falls into that category.

I'd save my appeal money if I were you. You'll get smoked by the appeal court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol.

You sure are all over the map. I'd suggest you learn to spell before insulting others.

Look coltfan, me and several others have been in this forum a long time, some are attorneys, some are just good at litigating a claim.....

When you cam in here being a newbie, asking ridiculous questions that are telling you will not hold up in court, no matter how good your argument is, and then get defensive when you do not hear what you want to hear makes people not want to respond to your posts.

I am not trying to get in yer a$$ at all I am just trying to tell you how it works here at CIC, but If an a$$ chewing is what it takes remember the Gunny was a Marine Corps drill instructor and served 26 years i can chew a$$ with the best, but I normally refrain from that until it is the last resort.......

We will discuss you topic, just like a court would if that is what you want. I can tell you this,,,even though you may have good claims for this, it wont fly,,,95% or more of all contracts in the business world are adhesion contracts, if a judge were to throw down the way business operates in this country it would turn all the banking contracts illegal and NO judge will open that can of worms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look coltfan, me and several others have been in this forum a long time, some are attorneys, some are just good at litigating a claim.....

When you cam in here being a newbie, asking ridiculous questions that are telling you will not hold up in court, no matter how good your argument is, and then get defensive when you do not hear what you want to hear makes people not want to respond to your posts.

I am not trying to get in yer a$$ at all I am just trying to tell you how it works here at CIC, but If an a$$ chewing is what it takes remember the Gunny was a Marine Corps drill instructor and served 26 years i can chew a$$ with the best, but I normally refrain from that until it is the last resort.......

We will discuss you topic, just like a court would if that is what you want. I can tell you this,,,even though you may have good claims for this, it wont fly,,,95% or more of all contracts in the business world are adhesion contracts, if a judge were to throw down the way business operates in this country it would turn all the banking contracts illegal and NO judge will open that can of worms.

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.

Edited by AdhesionContract

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Two things come to mind.

1. You lack standing to argue this because you did not buy it. If you would have bought it and paid for it, for let's say two years, and then came to your senses, I could maybe see some standing you would have.

2. I worked insurance, auto, for ten years. There were times we did not want the business so we priced ourselves out of the market. It was basically if you are dumb enough to buy it, we'll sell it to you.

For the record, credit insurance is a horrible rip off. However, it appears you knew and know that. You made the right choice and did not buy it, which is smart.

I just don't see how you can now argue that you wanted it but could not afford it and if you could have afford it you now have a covered loss.

That sounds to me like all the people that would call from the side of the road and want to add roadside assistance because they were broken down and then use the coverage immediately, but did not want to pay for the coverage on the front end.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"No debt restructuring without a default first. This is HUGE. Most reasonable people just assume that if a Dire Circumstance occurs in their lives, the credit card companies would not try and make their lives worse by defaulting on them."

True, but not to sound harsh, but what right does anybody have to restructuring due to dire circumstances? I know of none. It makes sense they would and it crappy not to, but what obligation do they have and what right does the consumer have to this? None I know of, other than the "do right rule" which is morally correct but has no legal backing.

If they want to restructure they can do so if and when they want, along with choosing the circumstances. As long as they don't base their decisions on race, sex, religion, etc...... they can do what they want when it comes to restructuring.

This is simple contract law. Unless the contract has a provision then they are not bound by the "do right rule" which is unfortunate.

I mean the family who's house was blown away by a tornado and their car is upside down in a tree that could not afford insurance is standing in the yard ten feet away from me while I'm cutting a 10K emergency check for their neighbor that could afford coverage. The look on the uninsured face is horrible, but nothing I can do.

Could I go over there and cut them a check? I guess so, but of course I'm not going to. It sucks they could not afford coverage and are now left to try and get money from the FEMA and the government.

On a common sense note, do you really blame them for not restructuring when the account is not in default (and default can and does mean even one day late)? Everybody and their dog would be calling if you could give a hard luck story and get them to restructure.

It's the first thing the debt consilidation people tell you (which I don't like those company's at all, for the record), stop paying right now. You have to get behind and then they will work with you. Again, it's their right and it would make no sense to start cutting deals to people that are not late. That is just shooting ones self in the foot. This is not something, by law unless in the contract they have to, they must tell you. They don't have to tell you ever type of situation or business decision that might arise and how they might or will handle it.

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.

Edited by AdhesionContract

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would should I keep buying a product once I see how unfairly priced it is?

You should not and you did 100% the right thing and told them to shove their overpriced product. Good job, nobody should buy that garbage.

Your arguments fail, and they will fail miserably in the court of appeals. But it's America, so have it. Go try to argue that their price was unfair. Of course they try to hedge their bet. Go argue it's all unfair. I hope you win. Come back and throw it in our faces and tell us you told us so. Just been around these boards a long time and have seen arguments a ton stronger than yours not even get off the ground in court.

And again, nobody was insulting you. You have a ridiculous and guaranteed losing argument (the way you are framing it at least) and we are just telling you the cold heart truth. You're not ridiculous or stupid, your argument(s) are. It's just a fact. There is nowhere to even go with these arguments. You're arguing it's unfair, which IT IS. Go throw your money at the appeals court level, it's not an insult against you personally.

You're getting the facts thrown back at you. Like I did with all your arguments and you pick one speculative argument to focus on. Do you think the other side is going to make it that easy on you. They are going to come at you hard, and these arguments we are making will be like a fourth grade debate on if grape soda or orange soda tastes better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Two things come to mind.

"I would argue that there are 10 dire circumstances situations where a consumer should be allowed to either suspend their debt, or lower their payments based on their new income level. If the credit card company disagrees with that stance, that is fine, BUT THEY MUST REVEAL that BEFORE I sign their agreement."

Says who? Nobody or no court, that's the problem. I agree 100% with you on this, but you state they must reveal this as it is some well established case law out there when there is none. It's like telling a debt collector they must send you every credit card statement as part of debt validation. Sounds good and sounds reasonable, but backed by no law or court.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I offered a debt instrument while my account was still in good standing The debt instrument was for equal to or more than what a court could garnish from me based on my lowered income when I became a CareGiver."

Well my response would be, one, speculation and two, so what? What if you won the lottery the next day or heaven forbid the person you were caring for died. You're asking them, no telling them they have to, make a permanent decision on your account when you are facing a situation that could be temporary and you're speculating.

This argument, in my opinion, is one of the worst. Again, everybody and their dog would be flooding them with hard luck stories. Or if somebody had 20K in debt and was working their tail off, but knew if they just got in a situation where they could not work as hard and still be paying the same toward the 20K, how many people would do that. By the way, I believe you about your situation, but it has no legal backing.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Credit Card Companies should not additionally profit off of CareGivers with ongoing penalties, fees and interest rate charges if the customer has good faith exhausted their financial resources first.

I agree 100% and it falls under the that sucks really sucks for them to do that category. It's unfair for them to do that, but hardly rises to the extreme level of a court stepping in and making them do the right thing morally.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Two things come to mind.

Credit Card Companies should not additionally profit off of CareGivers with ongoing penalties, fees and interest rate charges if the customer has good faith exhausted their financial resources first.

I agree 100% and it falls under the that sucks really sucks for them to do that category. It's unfair for them to do that, but hardly rises to the extreme level of a court stepping in and making them do the right thing morally.

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.

Edited by AdhesionContract

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2% monthly minimum payment structures are a KNOWN defect, Credit Card companies know this and still pushed their product. Both the Department of Justice and the Federal reserve have acknowledged that a 2% monthly minimum credit card payment is defective and needs to be raised, but they both acknowledge it can no longer be done because there is too much consumer debt in the U.S..

Right, so the issue has been addressed. So you want a state court judge to step in and take on the Dept of Justice and the Federal Reserve?

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over Priced Credit Protection Insurance was used as a hedge to prevent customers from being responsible in the event they had a dire circumstance and could not pay their monthly bill. "Defaulters" were denied the most reasonable option to keep their account in good standing by charging 20 to 30 times more than what they could have reasonably charged.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Merging of a regulated product (credit cards), with an unregulated product (credit protection), should not be allowed in an credit card adhesion situation.

A contract of adhesion just means that if there is ambiguity or basically a tie, it's ruled in the favor of the party that did not draw up the contract. Again, your not making a contract of adhesion argument but more of a throw out the contract type argument.

Example, Can a new car be sold as new with an unregulated tire product on the rims?

"conclusion, the HIDING of all unfavorable company policies on an adhesion contract is unacceptable and should give the court cause to adjust the agreement in a reasonable manner."

Again, you're assuming there is a duty to not hide unfavorable company policy and there is not. Now if there is ambiguity, you've got em. But nothing you described above falls into that category.

I'd save my appeal money if I were you. You'll get smoked by the appeal court.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish you the best of luck with the appeals court and/or other courts. I have nothing else to add to my statements. I think you will lose and lose badly, but I'd love to be wrong. Again, good luck!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You should not and you did 100% the right thing and told them to shove their overpriced product. Good job, nobody should buy that garbage.

Your arguments fail, and they will fail miserably in the court of appeals. But it's America, so have it. Go try to argue that their price was unfair. Of course they try to hedge their bet. Go argue it's all unfair. I hope you win. Come back and throw it in our faces and tell us you told us so. Just been around these boards a long time and have seen arguments a ton stronger than yours not even get off the ground in court.

And again, nobody was insulting you. You have a ridiculous and guaranteed losing argument (the way you are framing it at least) and we are just telling you the cold heart truth. You're not ridiculous or stupid, your argument(s) are. It's just a fact. There is nowhere to even go with these arguments. You're arguing it's unfair, which IT IS. Go throw your money at the appeals court level, it's not an insult against you personally.

You're getting the facts thrown back at you. Like I did with all your arguments and you pick one speculative argument to focus on. Do you think the other side is going to make it that easy on you. They are going to come at you hard, and these arguments we are making will be like a fourth grade debate on if grape soda or orange soda tastes better.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.