AdhesionContract

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

Recommended Posts

And now you know why the Gunny does not own credit cards. You also know why the Gunny does not have a mortgage,,,

I pay cash,,,I learned the hard way when I bought my truck,,,Ill never do it again.

You will never get a court to agree, they know what is at stake. There is no judge on this planet that will even think of putting his career in jeopardy by ruling against the whole credit market.

It is the way a Capitalistic society does business, we the people actually means we with the money who make all the rules to keep the poor in line.

Do you think for a minute that congress actually makes the decisions,,,, NO the big banks and businesses make the rules. Those with the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And now you know why the Gunny does not own credit cards. You also know why the Gunny does not have a mortgage,,,

I pay cash,,,I learned the hard way when I bought my truck,,,Ill never do it again.

You will never get a court to agree, they know what is at stake. There is no judge on this planet that will even think of putting his career in jeopardy by ruling against the whole credit market.

It is the way a Capitalistic society does business, we the people actually means we with the money who make all the rules to keep the poor in line.

Do you think for a minute that congress actually makes the decisions,,,, NO the big banks and businesses make the rules. Those with the money.

I agree, and yet...I think it can become defeatist thinking to put too much energy into the power the other side may have, no? I need to allocate my resources towards winning what I believe to be a logical and fair course, no just for me, but for 90% of all credit card defaults that have occurred because credit card companies hedged the very insurance product that consumers could have used to protect themselves during a time of dire circumstances.

However, it does sound like I should use my video background to start making some videos to help build consensus. Unfortunately, I don't know if I'll have the time between CareGiving, yard work, house work, and so on.

Edited by AdhesionContract

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can think of so many ways that you are handling this argument wrong and how it hurts your case.

!. By admitting that you had an account that you are arguing on unfair balance of bargaining power you prove they only things they have trouble proving in court. ie: that you applied for credit, that you used the card, that you defaulted, and that there was no dispute prior to this. You cancelled the insurance at issue and thus you were not harmed by it not paying the account when a default occurred.

2. That you cannot now take a different position in this matter due to judicial Estoppel.

3. That none of the contracts have been ruled unconscionable by the OTS who is the fed regulator in charge of those contracts.

4. That the judge rejected it and will in all likelyhood never will change his mind. Now the judge will look very carefully at all further arguments you present.

5. You have bet your hand on this case on a 2 of clubs.

6. That well meaning people tried to diswade you from this, including the judge in an effort not to see the case start to turn clockwise in an ever increasing rate.

I was unable to locate this issue in relation to credit card case in California nor in federal court I will check the 9th circuit but it has never been done that I have found.

I hope you try some other arguments with this, as I know from personal experience that appellate divisions are very rough on pro per debtors in their rulings. For all the hell WE have raised on the credit card issues we have seen absolutely no change from the banks.

Some possible issues that might work to win this for you.

Improper witnesses

improper records keeping practices

Failure to mitigate damages by closing the credit line to new purchases

and then any violations of the FCBA, FCRA, and Fed Banking regs.

I hope you take to heart we were only trying to help you win. It makes me sad that someone would keep clinging to the bad issue like a life ring that is sinking.

Maybe we all got off to a bad start. Why don't you give us some redacted info like the newbie form we have and then maybe we can see a ray of light in this and work from the beggining a fresh start so to speak.

It will sadden me to see that this argument could be highly detrimental. If you argue hard for this then they rule that it is an adhesion contract but you lose the case because you have no defense for their other claims then what was it all for.

The government is fully aware of these contracts and they did nothing, the courts are aware of these and as you have found out they think they are nothing, I would hate to see a loss due to this. It reminds me of this case here: http://www.creditinfocenter.com/forums/there-lawyer-house/308095-yet-another-case-securitization-defense-failure-2.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a general principle of contract law that courts should err on the side of enforcing contracts.Parties entering into the arrangement presumably had the intention of forming an enforceable contract, and so courts generally attempt to follow this intention.

Here is what you HAVE to prove;

Unconscionability (also known as unconscientious dealings) is a term used in contract law to describe a defense against the enforcement of a contract based on the presence of terms that are excessively unfair to one party. Typically, such a contract is held to be unenforceable because the consideration offered is lacking or is so obviously inadequate that to enforce the contract would be unfair to the party seeking to escape the contract.

ACCORD AND SATISFACTION

Executory accord,

generally, is an agreement to the parties of a contract under which one promises to render a substitute performance in the future.(every time we swipe our card) and the other promises to accept that substitute performance in discharge of the existing duty.

SUBSTITUTED AGREEMENT

Which is similar but not identical to Executory accord, but under substituted agreement the existing agreement is discharged and replaced with a new agreement(every time we swipe our card). So if a new agreement is substituted and non performance exists, the creditor can only sue on the substituted contract, not the one before it or the original.

That is just a short answer I could fill up these pages for weeks on contract law..

Edited by BTO429

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can think of so many ways that you are handling this argument wrong and how it hurts your case.

!. By admitting that you had an account that you are arguing on unfair balance of bargaining power you prove they only things they have trouble proving in court. ie: that you applied for credit, that you used the card, that you defaulted, and that there was no dispute prior to this. You cancelled the insurance at issue and thus you were not harmed by it not paying the account when a default occurred.

2. That you cannot now take a different position in this matter due to judicial Estoppel.

3. That none of the contracts have been ruled unconscionable by the OTS who is the fed regulator in charge of those contracts.

4. That the judge rejected it and will in all likelyhood never will change his mind. Now the judge will look very carefully at all further arguments you present.

5. You have bet your hand on this case on a 2 of clubs.

6. That well meaning people tried to diswade you from this, including the judge in an effort not to see the case start to turn clockwise in an ever increasing rate.

I was unable to locate this issue in relation to credit card case in California nor in federal court I will check the 9th circuit but it has never been done that I have found.

I hope you try some other arguments with this, as I know from personal experience that appellate divisions are very rough on pro per debtors in their rulings. For all the hell WE have raised on the credit card issues we have seen absolutely no change from the banks.

Some possible issues that might work to win this for you.

Improper witnesses

improper records keeping practices

Failure to mitigate damages by closing the credit line to new purchases

and then any violations of the FCBA, FCRA, and Fed Banking regs.

I hope you take to heart we were only trying to help you win. It makes me sad that someone would keep clinging to the bad issue like a life ring that is sinking.

Maybe we all got off to a bad start. Why don't you give us some redacted info like the newbie form we have and then maybe we can see a ray of light in this and work from the beggining a fresh start so to speak.

It will sadden me to see that this argument could be highly detrimental. If you argue hard for this then they rule that it is an adhesion contract but you lose the case because you have no defense for their other claims then what was it all for.

The government is fully aware of these contracts and they did nothing, the courts are aware of these and as you have found out they think they are nothing, I would hate to see a loss due to this. It reminds me of this case here: http://www.creditinfocenter.com/forums/there-lawyer-house/308095-yet-another-case-securitization-defense-failure-2.html

Simply excellent points and dead on. However, this poster has their mind made up and is not going to be persuaded with any arguments, no matter how legally sound. I agree, it's sad because you can tell the poster has some knowledge of the system, but is just hell bent on continuing this train wreck head on at 100 MPH, no matter what anybody says. It's like the securitization defense folks. It does not matter what you say they take that argument into court and lose every single time and then come back to complain about how unfair it is that they lost.

But Sea, as usual, you've nailed it with your analysis and advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interpret the contract with. as you have found there is not alot of caselaw on the matter and thus the judge can really rule any way he wants because he/she knows that a pro per won't incur more costs on appeal. So you are basically at the mercy of the judge rulingin the matter.

So what are your plans for this maybe we can help keep the train on the track. And I don't see why you are getting so upset, I mean really it's not like you are paying for advice or anything.

You sound like the kinda person that will do what you want any way all we can do really is point you down the right road. I still haven't found any more caselaw for this arguement so you would be blazing a new trail.

Maybe if you wrap this argument into another one and try that tack. But my opinion of the arguement as I see it, It fails and opens up other issues against you. If this was a really good argument the NACA lawyers would be all over it. So I have to say to you I hope you have a backup plan and can we help with that. No one is forcing you. We are only here to help.

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

So going along what this said yes it was an adhesion contract but the credit insurance was laid out very clearly and you had Notice of the terms of it. Where the court would rule on your circumstances well I do not have Racecars crystall ball but my magic 8 ball says "outlook not so good"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I doubt the original poster is still around, as most usually are never heard from again when they don't hear what they want to hear from us, you and Racecar have obviously just destroyed the flawed argument.

Maybe the next person thinking about using the argument will stumble on this thread. The credit insurance was always an issue of an overpriced product that was properly disclosed and nothing more. Good job to you both !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what the guy was trying to do, our system is heavily biased and it sucks. The BBC had a good series on some of the things that led us to this point. And no, I don't mean skull & bones, illuminati and all that other conspiracy nonsense. How we got here is largely our stumbling into the system we have, almost on accident. The series is 3 hours long and is called "The Trap" with the first episode called "FU Buddy!" and they're really interesting.

 

That said... What I don't understand is why this poster was trying to take this task on. What he was trying to do was the job of an AG at least, and legislators being the most capable of doing it. Win your case by navigating the minefield and keep living, then go ask the people in charge if they could maybe remove some of the mines. Go pour that bleeding heart on letters to your disinterested representatives and one of the might be swayed enough to at least make some small effort that gets noticed at a time when constituents are screaming about financial issues. That is the only real hope a person has... Charging the cavalry with a wooden sword in the name of chivalry will just get you trampled.

Share this post


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