First, don't assume, as there is no "big ROI" in this situation. In fact, no ROI. You're missing the point here, the "possibility", which has now turned to "fact", is still a depletion of "absorption". This "fact" can be absorbed, but it is still an unjust one, due to circumstances I will not detail. Additionally, no business "chooses" to have parties default. Again, do not assume, as my point is that there is "legal recourse" available, but the "effectiveness" of it is worthless. That was my point relating to this thread. When you are on the collecting side, you appreciate how little recourse there really is, as in "blood out of a stone". I understand the point you are making here, but this is not the situation, nor is it an applicable example to my current situation. You are missing my point, as I was actually trying to support your thesis of ethical practices. Well, if we all had perfect information and foresight, then there would be issue or discussion. To address your post's tone; are you saying I should just "smile", and say "oh, it's just what I should have planned for", when someone does not hold up to an agreement/contract? My point is twofold: 1) there is an "injured" party whenever a debt is not paid, 2) The actual effectiveness of the collections process is very minimal (why do you think OCs are so quick to sell them?) Excuse my tone here, but based upon your earlier posts in this thread, I presumed you would readily appreciate the concurrence. My thread was a "real life testimonial" to the ethics of adhering to obligations which you touted, which I assumed you would welcome. Further, I do understand the workings of business planning and risk reduction very well. Sometimes, situations do not nicely fit into these boxes. At the moment mine is one of those. Whether you've planned for it, or not, "damages" hurt.
Well said, Biz. No matter what your plans are, they cannot cover EVERY contingency. If they did, the economy would become paralyzed by non-action for fear of some entitiy being "hurt." Maybe Mr. Shimmer should pass the 101 level of the courses he propounds, and get to the 500 or 600 level. It's not all black and white or cut and dry.
I misunderstood some of your postings, then. I thought you said that you entered into a business venture (one that I wrongly assumed was to MAKE money), were screwed by your partners & left holding the bag, and that you had no means of legal redress. If you DO have legal redress (which you now say you DO have), and your former partners are (as you previously described) buying real estate (or whatever it was), then I don't see why you don't pursue them in civil court.
You obviously missed the point. He had posted that he had entered into a business venture that did NOT include a means of legal redress if his partners screwed him (or, that's how I read it). And if that WAS true, then my assessment is spot on, and he DID screw up by not preparing for that 'contingency'. I have an AB and a BBA, so I've passed more ECO classes than you've read about in your local Community College course catalog. Again, if he entered into a business venture and did NOT ensure that he would have legal redress if his partners bailed, this situation IS black and white.
On (diploma) paper, yes. In real life, you've got a few years before experience catches up with your law degree ...
And, you obviously don't understand. I have a double major in Econ and Bus. Admin, and an MBA. I could have taught more than you probably learned in the BBA classes, which tend to NOT concentrate on econ, but on the business aspects. One of the major problems in this country is that even business people don't really understand the underlying economic system and how it works. Please don't think you can lecture economics to me.
Don't post or support posts with inaccuracies and you won't have to worry about being lectured by someone with fewer degrees than you ... Damn, apex, there you go calling me a HORSE again ...
You change the meaning of your wording to fit your view point.Even if bizwhiz had legal recourse that is no gurantee he would of ended up better off.A judgment does not gurantee the bank will collect one penny from the freeloading borrower.So much for legal recourse.You can try to dot all your i's and cross all your t's but life does not always work out the way you plan, no matter how perfect you think your plan is.
I like to look at the realities of situations, not the perfect picture to which you want everyone to ascribe. It seems to me that you posted to a post as if you knew all the facts, when in fact you didn't.
Try reading BEYOND the 7 +/- 1 limit, peeper. In a subsequent post, I responded that I misunderstood his post, as I thought that he said that he DID NOT HAVE any legal recourse.
No, I made statements based on my interpretation of a rather ambiguous posting. I can't help it if others can't explain themselves in terms that are easily understood. I think we've outdone ourselves on this one ...
Frankly, this is tiring, and a waste of time now. You're arguing about the "leaves" on the tree, and missing the forest completely. I am also finding your attacks on leading members appalling. There are very good people here, educated both with degrees and experience, that I feel deserve more respect than you show. Based upon your education and business experience boasted, I would think your manner would be more professional and courteous. As for my business actions to be taken , yes all legal recourse is being pursued. But, the point for illustration was the (sometimes) futlity of collections efforts. My point was posters here on this forum often don't realize how difficult it is to actually collect on bad debts often. I'm done with this, and I'm sorry readers have to see exchanges such as this. FYI, I also have business degrees, yes in Economics and Business Administration, as well as real world experience.
No, I'm not arguing about leaves. I'm talking about a decision to enter into a business venture WITHOUT being prepared and/or able to absorb the potential losses. YOU made the choices. YOU got burned. That's the bottom line. Number one, I am NOT attacking MEMBERS. I am attacking their POSITION on this subject. Second, I *am* a leading member here. Although I took a long leave, take a look at my join date. I've been on here for 8 years. I was the one who came up with, developed, and ran the original "Who Pulled My Credit fka Which creditor pulls which CRA?" project that PsychDoc expounded upon, after I shut down millcbs.com. I GAVE him the data I had collected, which is where he started from. I certainly don't need anybody telling me who the 'leading members' are around here, because I KNOW them and I AM one. Third, I don't care HOW many degrees someone has, nor how much academic education they have. If the post INACCURATE or MISLEADING information, I will continue to point it out. I already TOLD you that I misunderstood your original post and thought that you were WITHOUT recourse. I retracted what I said to you. What MORE do you expect me to do? Gee, I guess this is the place where you expect me to bow and cursey and tell you how wonderfully MORE intelligent you are than I, right? Please ... that may impress the newbies here, but that's about it. I'm done with this thread. If you choose to continue to mislead other visitors here, shame on them for following your advice, just because you have more academic accomplishments than they do. Good luck.
...that is evidence that the system is against the consumer. What if the judgment had not been granted yet-would it matter? Did they pull your credit report? Was your current address on the credit report at the time of the pull? Should the CA be obligated to use the current address they obtain from the credit report, for the sake of due diligence?
I'm not sure what you're asking. Should it not matter for WHAT? The purpose of a judgment is to provide the means by which a lender or his assignee can legally attempt to recover what you owe them. Without a judgment, a the debt owner can't legally attach (garnish) wages or use the various legal means by which to recover what is owed without your agreement. There are a few exceptions (e.g., if your original agreement with them authorizes them to withdrawl money from you bank account in the event of a default, etc.). Once they get a judgment, however, they have many more legal options to pursue you, and can (essentially) hound you until you settle. It doesn't matter what your address is with the collection agency. In most every standard lending agreement, it specifically states that it is YOUR obligation as a borrower to provide any updates to your address to the lender, and that if you default, their only obligation is to contact you via the last address that YOU provided. If creditors or CA's were required to hunt you down via addresses here or addresses there, it would make it near impossible to serve you. All a debtor would have to say is, "I don't know why the credit reporting agency had THAT address -- I didn't give it to them". Bottom line: As the borrower, it is your legal responsibilty to provide the lender with your contact information. If you default, they shouldn't have to hunt you down or bear the burden of having to prove how or why some particular address is/was your legal residence (with regard to serving a summons, etc.).
If the creditor has filed a summons/complaint but has not obtained a judgment, is it futile for the debtor to request arbitration at that point?
Not only futile, but assuming the creditor would cheerfully say "OK" it would be really stupid for the debtor to do that. Arbitration is a place for creditors to get their claims rubber-stamped in a proceeding with no procedural protections for the debtors (OK, some minimal ones ... enough to keep the word "kangaroo" out of the picture but not much better).
