Mr. Brown When I answered the post, I was simply trying to point out in reply to his obvious attempts to prove me a boob that it is not necessary to have a written contract in order to go to court and win a judgement. In smaller towns especially, this person could easily be a close friend of the judge who might easily give him his judgement without any proof at all if the defendant does not show up and file an answer. He gets it by default. Any one instance may or may not have been good examples for me to have used. No, shoplifting is a crime, but even so they have to catch you with the goods on your person or in your vehicle. There have been many cases where a store detective or shop owner honestly believed that they had observed someone shoplifting and called the police and made claim that such and such a person had committed the crime of shoplifting but the person proclaimed his innocence. When the police arrived, they could find no evidence either and the shopkeeper was in for a terrible lawsuit. Yes, that was probably a bad example. I suppose that I could have used the example of "go down to your lawyer and ask him to defend you against a traffic ticket then after he defends you tell him he can't collect because he didn't have you sign a contract. Some lawyers will defend against some small thing with little or no downpayment and terms to pay off if they think they know you pretty well. There are probably lots of better examples I could have used, but the point still remains that it is not always necessary to have any proof whatever to get a judgement. In his haste to condemn, I guess Mikeb wasn't thinking any better than I was when I chose the examples I did. That's alright, he has his ignore button on now anyway so he will never know. I have never seen it happen but have often wondered what would happen if the alledged shop lifter used the question of ownership as a defence: What Are Your Thoughts On This? I can't say that I have any thoughts on your question. I'd just about have to give an opinion based on the number of nanoseconds of experience I have as an attorney. That would most likely not produce the results you desire. -)
lbrown, shoplifting or other theft is like night and day to the original discussion. There is a difference between theft and someone claiming you owe them for some service for which they cannot prove, especially from fraudulent activities. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and yes you have to go to court and fight it, or otherwise you could lose the judgement. I never said otherwise. Anyway, that theft example is such a stupid and unrelated example from someone on this board, that I won't reply on it further. With that mentality, what would stop some scum from painting your house or something without permission and charging you thousands of dollars for it and taking you to court if you don't pay the thief?
With that mentality, what would stop some scum from painting your house or something without permission and charging you thousands of dollars for it and taking you to court if you don't pay the thief? Painting your house for you without permission is hardly thieving from you. Guess your examples are just about as stupid as mine. Welcome to the club. Anyway, I thought you had your ignore button on.
Not theft? You don't think someone charging you thousands of dollars for something you never asked for or agreed to is not theft (or at least illegal) if they sue you and you are somehow found liable by a court and have to pay it? You really are dense, even for a senior. Where do you live? When you go on vacation, I will throw a gallon of paint on your house and send you a bill for $50,000 for services rendered since you say that is not "thieving". Geez. I bet alot of thieves wish you would run for office. Why do you bother dwelling 24/7 on this board? I am curious since your credit should be impeccable at your age. I am here for mutual good advice to improve my credit. You seem to dwell here to spam your B.S. credit repair crap, and "attempt" to make others look bad that are offering advice in a good faith effort to help someone.
MikeB I am not defending anyone here. But you must look at the countless acts of trickery that happen everyday. Many transactions are just not regulated. It doesnt mean that these folks are morally right for stealing someones money for doing close to nothing. For example, many years ago the SEC(securities exchange commision) regulated the entire way that investing was done. People that didnt make a certain amount of money were no longer allowed to invest with the big dogs. The SEC believed that the odds were to stacked against those who didnt have this kind of money to lose. On the other end there would be the de-regulation of moving companies. Do you know that they can give you a quote and if you dont get it signed in contract form, they can charge you any price they want once they load thier trucks with your precious belongings. If you dont pay them, they can take away everyything you own and nothing can be done about it. It is a sad story indeed. This is a moral issue that is also a regulatory issue. The original poster is being sued by someone that obviousily did nothing. But, is he entitled to the money in question? Are you for certain that he is not. Attorneys lose cases and still expect to get paid for their time. The question I am asking is how does he get paid. Is he a commision based sales person or a fee based proffesional. I know little of these type of transactions and maybe someone with a little experience in this field could explain it in more detail. The other point is, how did this guy come to such a figure ($1500) with such little invested? This is definately a little shady sounding...
Not theft? You don't think someone charging you thousands of dollars for something you never asked for or agreed to is not theft (or at least illegal) if they sue you and you are somehow found liable by a court and have to pay it? No, that's fraud. Where do you live? I live in LALA land. Where do you live? (LOL) When you go on vacation, I will throw a gallon of paint on your house and send you a bill for $50,000 for services rendered since you say that is not "thieving". Geez. No, that's not thieving, that's property damage. Trying to collect money for doing property damage would probably be classified as fraud. I bet alot of thieves wish you would run for office. Probably so. However, with my luck, if I ran for dog catcher with a dog as my sole contender, the dog would win. Why do you bother dwelling 24/7 on this board? Why don't you ask Jeeves? He is in the business of answering all kinds of questions, I'm not. I am curious since your credit should be impeccable at your age. Curiosity killed the cat. I am here for mutual good advice to improve my credit. You seem to dwell here to spam your B.S. credit repair crap, and "attempt" to make others look bad that are offering advice in a good faith effort to help someone. Well, which is it? Are you looking for mutual good advice to improve your credit or are you offering advice? I am certain that those who look to you for advice would like to know. I didn't attempt to make you look bad until you started this scenario. And I don't have to "attempt" to make "others" look bad. "Others" do an admirable job of that without my help. You haven't even listened well enough to understand that I don't do credit repair. I leave that to those who are in the business of sending unlimited volumes of complaints to the credit bureaus trying to convince them that the truth is a lie and the lie is truth. I don't play those silly games. Anyway, I thought you had your ignore button set?
If you ask me, it's all pretty simple. In order for someone to get payment for services rendered, THERE HAS TO BE A CONTRACT. The contract can be written or verbal.Verbal contracts are just more difficult to prove in court. I know someone is going to bring this up also, but there is also such a thing as an implied contract. When you order lunch at a cafe, or pump gas at a gas station, you are implying that you will pay for them. To sum it up, if there was a verbal or written contract that you would pay for the services, then it is enforceable if it can be proven. If there was no contract, then you do not owe a dime. And I just as well comment on someone painting the house. If someone comes over and paints my house without verbal authorization from me, you're darn right I don't have to pay them. And if I don't like the color, I'm going to sue the pants off them for what it's going to cost to repaint it at my labor costs (which ain't cheap). AND I WILL WIN.
Godaddyo, I appreciate everything you say. When I look at a particular situation, I try to look at all sides, but I focus more on what is in place to protect the consumer from fraudulent activities. Unfortunately, as you know, there are not enough laws that cover every type of fraud out there. There is actually a defense (that I can't recall the name for) that is for particular situations for which current laws may not fairly provide relief for. It's true that a lawyer can defend you and you lose the case but must pay the lawyer for his effort and time. This applies to alot of situations where the results may be "intangible", but you still must pay if you solicited the service to begin with. But, I still don't like the idea that someone can simply claim they did something for you that you didn't ask for or agree to in writing or verbally and then litigate if you refuse to pay them. This leaves open way too many possibilities for fraud. There has to be some type type of protection against this. Maybe I am wrong.....
There is protection against this type of thing. If they want to collect money from you, they have to prove that they had a verbal or written contract with you that they will provide you with their services in exchange for compensation from you.
Shhhh! You will get Bill ranting again LOL. My My, you do jump to wild conclusions, don't you? Anyone got Johnny Cochran's number? Haha. As a matter of fact, it just so happens that I do have Johnny Cochran's number, although not his California number. He has an office here in Oklahoma City through an associate of his. The associate's name is John Carter and is an attorney here in OKC. It also just happens that I know John Carter quite well and although I have spoken to Johnny Cochran by phone a couple of times, I do not know that man personally. You can look it up in the Oklahoma City Phone book or maybe go ask Jeeves. Are we having fun yet??
I wonder what would really happen if your house got painted when you were on vacation...A REAL GOOD PROFESSIONAL JOB, NOT FLY BY NIGHT... I suppose if you really needed it, you could pay them on YOUR TERMS...(even though they made the mistake...YOU NEVER ASKED FOR IT TO BE DONE). THEY CAN'T UN-PAINT IT!!!
If someone comes over and paints my house without verbal authorization from me, you're darn right I don't have to pay them. You could have to pay them because there may be implied consent!
Unauthorized Painting This is deviating from the core subject, but the idea of unauthorized painting is not as far fetched as it may seem. There is a well known scam that crops up from time to time. Ask your local PD's bunko-fraud detective, and they can confirm this happens. With this scam, a guy, or a couple of guys, drives down a street and paints your house number on the curb with stencils. They then knock on your door demanding payment for the service. When you protest, they insinuate that they where authororized to do this by the local fire dept. This scam works well on the elderly who tend to believe their fire dept has their welfare in mind, and the fact that the painters look like they could get realy nasty if not paid.
Re: Unauthorized Painting They probably look pretty nasty whether they get paid or not. (LOL) That old scam has been pulled in just about every city in the US. Maybe in the world.
