Sign in to follow this  
Darin

card agreements are instruments

Recommended Posts

The agreement is a non negotiable instrument correct?

As such it is not transferable or assignable, correct?

Thus it can't be sold, correct?

If it can be sold does the instrument need to be perfected for right of action?

If sold and not perfected then the debtor has no protection from double liability, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Darin said:
 

The agreement is a non negotiable instrument correct?

As such it is not transferable or assignable, correct?

Thus it can't be sold, correct?

If it can be sold does the instrument need to be perfected for right of action?

If sold and not perfected then the debtor has no protection from double liability, correct?

Please stop creating a new thread for every question.  Keep all questions related to the same topic or issue in one thread.  

In regard to your current question, contracts can be assigned.  Credit card agreements specifically state that accounts may be assigned.

From where are you getting the information leading to your questions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BV80 said:

 

From where are you getting the information leading to your questions?

Perhaps from the Gold Fringe site.  

 

That was for the old timers.  There were some threads in the old days about how using a gold fringe argument was the best way to lose a case big time.  

Here are the facts, simple as A,B,C.

A. Strange conspiracy theories travel the internet at the speed of light. (*)

B. Some people believe these theories, even when told otherwise by folks with more knowledge.

C. People who try out these weird theories in court often get slammed hard by judges.

 

 

(*) Yes, I know the speed of electrons is actually slower than the speed of light, but the difference is undetectable to your web browser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, BackFromTheDebt said:

Perhaps from the Gold Fringe site.  

 

That was for the old timers.  There were some threads in the old days about how using a gold fringe argument was the best way to lose a case big time.  

Here are the facts, simple as A,B,C.

A. Strange conspiracy theories travel the internet at the speed of light. (*)

B. Some people believe these theories, even when told otherwise by folks with more knowledge.

C. People who try out these weird theories in court often get slammed hard by judges.

 

 

(*) Yes, I know the speed of electrons is actually slower than the speed of light, but the difference is undetectable to your web browser.

Gold Fringe?  Is that a “sovereign citizen” site?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BV80 said:
 

Gold Fringe?  Is that a “sovereign citizen” site?

Actually, I don't know if there is such a site.  I made it up.  But you are correct.  The gold fringe argument is spread by the so-called "sovereign citizens".  

 

Helpful hint:  judges truly hate the gold fringe argument.  Never, ever try it,

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, BackFromTheDebt said:

Actually, I don't know if there is such a site.  I made it up.  But you are correct.  The gold fringe argument is spread by the so-called "sovereign citizens".  

 

Helpful hint:  judges truly hate the gold fringe argument.  Never, ever try it,

 

Oh, I know they hate it.  In the past, we have warned and discredited those who attempt to argue securitization and “strawman” theories. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize for the multiple threads, some forums specifically ask for a new thread with each new query.

By Gold Fringe I'm assuming you are referring to what some claim is a flag of Admiralty jurisdiction. From my experience there are a lot of things judges don't like, especially when one exercises their right  to self represent.

In asnswer to your question; My query stems from a frustrating search for what a credit card agreement is classified as. It is obviously an instrument, but does not meet  the requisites of a security, promissory note, letter of credit, bill of exchange. Debt instrument is about the only title that fits, however that term is to general.

Please answer all the questions asked as they are in context so as to gain full understanding.

If it's transferable it is a security is it not?

If right of action comes from contract, What about perfection of the instrument?

Risk of double liability?

Does Holder in Due Course theory apply?

If the debt buyer purchases the instrument after charge off and at a discounted price than he is not a holder in due course, correct?

 

Where does the right of action come from?

Is not the remedy limited to actual damages (purchase price)?

I thank all who help in curing my ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you are making things too complicated - like if you set a bottle on a table, you don't need to understand the physics behind gravity to know that the bottle won't float away. Same with CC debt. If you stop paying your debts, some lenders will sell that debt to somebody who will take a more aggressive approach to collection - including filing a lawsuit. The rules of civil procedure, and relevant statutes are all well understood. There's no mystery to this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darin said:

If it's transferable it is a security is it not?

It is not.  It is basic contract law that allows the rights to be transferred.  Rights are not tangible.  A security interest is.

1 hour ago, Darin said:

If right of action comes from contract, What about perfection of the instrument?

Perfection of the instrument is required when there is collateral such as the vehicle on an auto loan or house in a mortgage.  Perfection of the instrument has nothing to do with credit card debt collections.

1 hour ago, Darin said:

Risk of double liability?

NONE

2 hours ago, Darin said:

Does Holder in Due Course theory apply?

If the debt buyer purchases the instrument after charge off and at a discounted price than he is not a holder in due course, correct?

NO to both.  The JDB is not a HDC because the account is not a negotiable instrument.

2 hours ago, Darin said:

Where does the right of action come from?

Basic contract law.  The card terms and conditions forms the contract between the consumer and the creditor.  One of those terms is that all rights and responsibilities under the T&C can be sold to another party at any time.  That means a bad debt portfolio of accounts can be sold or as in the case of HSBC years ago they sold all their credit accounts to Capital One to get out of the credit card business in the USA.  

2 hours ago, Darin said:

Is not the remedy limited to actual damages (purchase price)?

Again, NO.  Under basic contract law they get ALL the rights to the account that the original creditor had which includes the entire balance due to the OC at the time of the sale of the account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darin said:

If it's transferable it is a security is it not?

No, it is not a security.  The fact that the agreement can be transferred does not automatically make it a security.  There is no assigned value such as with a mortgage.  No collateral or deposit is required for an unsecured credit card.  

 

2 hours ago, Darin said:

If right of action comes from contract, What about perfection of the instrument?

Perfection is not necessary.  Again, it is not a security.

 

2 hours ago, Darin said:

Risk of double liability?

What do you mean?

2 hours ago, Darin said:

Does Holder in Due Course theory apply?

If one is being sued by a debt buyer, the correct challenge is “standing to sue”.  In order to file suit, the plaintiff must have suffered an injury.  The only way a debt buyer can claim an injury is to prove ownership of the account. If it cannot prove ownership, it cannot have suffered an injury and does not have standing to sue.

2 hours ago, Darin said:

If the debt buyer purchases the instrument after charge off and at a discounted price than he is not a holder in due course, correct?

He is the owner and new creditor.  The discounted price makes no difference.  The original creditor has the right to sell accounts for what price it chooses.

2 hours ago, Darin said:

Where does the right of action come from?

From the agreement and the actions of the parties.  When you use a credit card, you accept the terms and conditions of the agreement.

2 hours ago, Darin said:

Is not the remedy limited to actual damages (purchase price)?

No.  The agreement allows that a new owner has the same rights as the original creditor.  That includes the right to the balance.  Stop and think about it.  There are certain credit card companies that almost always sell defaulted accounts.  If recovery were limited to the purchase price, consumers could use those cards, max them out, and not pay.  They could simply wait to be sued by debt buyers who could only recover the purchase price.  In other words, they’d get a bunch of free stuff.

In addition, debt purchasing companies would not exist if there were no profit.  Businesses need profits in order to exist.  If you bought an old car for $1000, you should be able to try to resell it for more than $1000 if you choose. You should not be limited to the amount you paid for it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mystery lies in why the account is sold, (pennies on the dollar) in the first place. Economically it makes no sense. Surely they have lawyers on retainer if not on payroll. They have right of action or do they? Being the superior party in a Unilateral  contract do they have right of suit? Or is it that the agreement is a fraud from the start. It has been settled beyond controversy, by superior courts, that a National Bank , under federal law, being limited in its power and capacity, cannot lend its credit by guaranteeing the debt of another.

  Right of action comes from agreement within the contract. As with securities by signing the CC agreement a promiss is made creating the liability of the obligation to perform. One could argue that the promiss of future labor is the security and when sold the sum due is fixed and the instrument is payable upon demand, is that not a promissory  note? And when sold in bulk creates a type v security instrument.

What I am attempting  to do is define what kind of instrument  a CC agreement  is. Does the type of contract (unilateral), makd a difference?

How, upon timely dispute of the validity of both contract and account, they can refuse to bring forth the contracting agreement in original form so as to prove up the obligation and thus the right of action. If the maxim, "No contract no liability" holds true than the right of either party to demand positive evidence before performing  must stand.

The Bill of sale and assignment of account is merely a receipt of transaction not a contract nor can it represent one. And if the contract is Ultra Vira there is no right of assignment.

Upon completion of obligation what happens to the contracting document and why is it not returned.

A note void in the hands of the payee, because obtained by him of the maker by fraud, is collectible in the hands of a subsequent bona fides holder who has taken it before maturity for value; but if such holder has paid on such transfer a less sum than the the amount of the note, he can only recover the amount which he...has paid for it. Holcombe v. Wyckoff.

Actual damages: Real, substantial and just  damages, or the amount awarded to a complaint in compensation for his actual and real loss or injury, as opposed on the one hand to "nominal" damages, and on the other to "exemplary" or "punitive" damages.   Synonymous  with "compensatory  and general damages". Blacks 4th

Suit is about remedy of actual injury (purchase price), not about realization of profit. If it were than there would be no risk in investing.

The debt buyer, having no first hand knowledge, knowingly  and voluntarily  purchased bad debt as an investment, any injury is self inflicted.

If one does not understand the physics than one may not recognize subterfuge and duplicity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Darin said:

The mystery lies in why the account is sold, (pennies on the dollar) in the first place. Economically it makes no sense. Surely they have lawyers on retainer if not on payroll. They have right of action or do they? Being the superior party in a Unilateral  contract do they have right of suit? Or is it that the agreement is a fraud from the start. It has been settled beyond controversy, by superior courts, that a National Bank , under federal law, being limited in its power and capacity, cannot lend its credit by guaranteeing the debt of another.

  Right of action comes from agreement within the contract. As with securities by signing the CC agreement a promiss is made creating the liability of the obligation to perform. One could argue that the promiss of future labor is the security and when sold the sum due is fixed and the instrument is payable upon demand, is that not a promissory  note? And when sold in bulk creates a type v security instrument.

What I am attempting  to do is define what kind of instrument  a CC agreement  is. Does the type of contract (unilateral), makd a difference?

How, upon timely dispute of the validity of both contract and account, they can refuse to bring forth the contracting agreement in original form so as to prove up the obligation and thus the right of action. If the maxim, "No contract no liability" holds true than the right of either party to demand positive evidence before performing  must stand.

The Bill of sale and assignment of account is merely a receipt of transaction not a contract nor can it represent one. And if the contract is Ultra Vira there is no right of assignment.

Upon completion of obligation what happens to the contracting document and why is it not returned.

A note void in the hands of the payee, because obtained by him of the maker by fraud, is collectible in the hands of a subsequent bona fides holder who has taken it before maturity for value; but if such holder has paid on such transfer a less sum than the the amount of the note, he can only recover the amount which he...has paid for it. Holcombe v. Wyckoff.

Actual damages: Real, substantial and just  damages, or the amount awarded to a complaint in compensation for his actual and real loss or injury, as opposed on the one hand to "nominal" damages, and on the other to "exemplary" or "punitive" damages.   Synonymous  with "compensatory  and general damages". Blacks 4th

Suit is about remedy of actual injury (purchase price), not about realization of profit. If it were than there would be no risk in investing.

The debt buyer, having no first hand knowledge, knowingly  and voluntarily  purchased bad debt as an investment, any injury is self inflicted.

If one does not understand the physics than one may not recognize subterfuge and duplicity.

Horse manure.  That nonsense has been tried in defending collection suits for almost 2 decades and failed.  NO ONE here is going to help you with that garbage.  Waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Clydesmom said:

Horse manure.  That nonsense has been tried in defending collection suits for almost 2 decades and failed.  NO ONE here is going to help you with that garbage.  Waste of time.

We are here to help.  Your comment is not helpful.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darin said:

The mystery lies in why the account is sold, (pennies on the dollar) in the first place. Economically it makes no sense. Surely they have lawyers on retainer if not on payroll. They have right of action or do they? Being the superior party in a Unilateral  contract do they have right of suit? Or is it that the agreement is a fraud from the start. It has been settled beyond controversy, by superior courts, that a National Bank , under federal law, being limited in its power and capacity, cannot lend its credit by guaranteeing the debt of another.

  Right of action comes from agreement within the contract. As with securities by signing the CC agreement a promiss is made creating the liability of the obligation to perform. One could argue that the promiss of future labor is the security and when sold the sum due is fixed and the instrument is payable upon demand, is that not a promissory  note? And when sold in bulk creates a type v security instrument.

What I am attempting  to do is define what kind of instrument  a CC agreement  is. Does the type of contract (unilateral), makd a difference?

How, upon timely dispute of the validity of both contract and account, they can refuse to bring forth the contracting agreement in original form so as to prove up the obligation and thus the right of action. If the maxim, "No contract no liability" holds true than the right of either party to demand positive evidence before performing  must stand.

The Bill of sale and assignment of account is merely a receipt of transaction not a contract nor can it represent one. And if the contract is Ultra Vira there is no right of assignment.

Upon completion of obligation what happens to the contracting document and why is it not returned.

A note void in the hands of the payee, because obtained by him of the maker by fraud, is collectible in the hands of a subsequent bona fides holder who has taken it before maturity for value; but if such holder has paid on such transfer a less sum than the the amount of the note, he can only recover the amount which he...has paid for it. Holcombe v. Wyckoff.

Actual damages: Real, substantial and just  damages, or the amount awarded to a complaint in compensation for his actual and real loss or injury, as opposed on the one hand to "nominal" damages, and on the other to "exemplary" or "punitive" damages.   Synonymous  with "compensatory  and general damages". Blacks 4th

Suit is about remedy of actual injury (purchase price), not about realization of profit. If it were than there would be no risk in investing.

The debt buyer, having no first hand knowledge, knowingly  and voluntarily  purchased bad debt as an investment, any injury is self inflicted.

If one does not understand the physics than one may not recognize subterfuge and duplicity.

Did you come up with this on your own?  Or did you read it on other sites?

We should “cut to the chase”.   Did you open the account in question?   Did you make charges  to that account?  

Be honest.  Do not attempt to spin and offer a flowery diversion.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Darin said:

What I am attempting  to do is define what kind of instrument  a CC agreement  is.

You're trying to make this much more complicated than it is.  A credit card agreement is just a written contract between two parties.  Nothing more, nothing less.  The type of contract (i.e. subject matter) is irrelevant to the parties' obligations to perform under the terms of the agreement.

 

3 hours ago, Darin said:

Suit is about remedy of actual injury (purchase price)

Only in actions under tort law.  Contract lawsuits are actionable under contract law which is different than tort law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this