Creditwrench and estoppel Part II
Creditwrench
Senior Member
Joined: October 16 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Online
Posts: 248
In his criminal act of posting copyrighted material he posted this part of the letter. Please be advised that my posting of it here does not authorize the posting of it in any other message by any other party. I do not relinquish any copyrights in posting this portion.
In order for the doctrine of estoppel to apply, the party of the first part (you, the collector) must make some statement or engage in some conduct upon which I have relied and acted upon which later proved to be to my detriment or prejudice."
Now then, my argument against the usage of the estoppel theory is explained above. In order to make estoppel operable, the debt collector must (1)make some statement or engage in some conduct(2) upon which the debtor relies(3) and acts upon which later proves to be to his detriment or prejudice.
So the debtor demands validation and receives no reply whatever from the debt collector. Any debt collector with a brain in his/her cranial cavity would immediately start asking themselves what exactly was it that they did or said that would trigger the Doctrine of Estoppel and of course the answer has to be nothing at all. Obviously the debtor then has nothing at all upon which he could reply.
But since there are those who don't stop to think it follows that some might get stupid and fear that they might have done something wrong and throw up their hands rather than to fight about it. After all, since they aren't lawyers they don't usually understand all that mumbo jumbo anyway.
Surprisingly enough more than a few get just that stupid. They then either sell or assign the debt to someone else or they return it to the original creditor.
Enormis Dingleberry is so stupid he thinks he just stumbled onto the greatest Bauer trap that ever existed so he bit on it big time. That letter is so old that by now most debt collectors just about kicked the slats out of their baby cribs first time they ever saw it but old Dingleberry just fell for it hook, line and sinker.
LOL
Senior Member
Joined: October 16 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Online
Posts: 248
| Posted: January 30 2005 at 9:56pm | IP Logged |  |
In order for the doctrine of estoppel to apply, the party of the first part (you, the collector) must make some statement or engage in some conduct upon which I have relied and acted upon which later proved to be to my detriment or prejudice."
Now then, my argument against the usage of the estoppel theory is explained above. In order to make estoppel operable, the debt collector must (1)make some statement or engage in some conduct(2) upon which the debtor relies(3) and acts upon which later proves to be to his detriment or prejudice.
So the debtor demands validation and receives no reply whatever from the debt collector. Any debt collector with a brain in his/her cranial cavity would immediately start asking themselves what exactly was it that they did or said that would trigger the Doctrine of Estoppel and of course the answer has to be nothing at all. Obviously the debtor then has nothing at all upon which he could reply.
But since there are those who don't stop to think it follows that some might get stupid and fear that they might have done something wrong and throw up their hands rather than to fight about it. After all, since they aren't lawyers they don't usually understand all that mumbo jumbo anyway.
Surprisingly enough more than a few get just that stupid. They then either sell or assign the debt to someone else or they return it to the original creditor.
Enormis Dingleberry is so stupid he thinks he just stumbled onto the greatest Bauer trap that ever existed so he bit on it big time. That letter is so old that by now most debt collectors just about kicked the slats out of their baby cribs first time they ever saw it but old Dingleberry just fell for it hook, line and sinker.
LOL
posted by Creditwrench @ 6:26 PM
![](http://www.ftc.gov/images/hpbuttons/hot_credit_reports.gif")
<< Home