It would seem to me the the OC (orig cred) should be held liable and accountable for using someone not authorized to handle nationwide collections. Any other takers on this?
Someone awhile back stated that under the Law of Agency ?? an original creditor can be held liable for violations committed by a 3rd party collector that was assigned to collect the debt, not sold the debt. I have no idea what the Law of Agency is.
Well with my soon to be expanded legalese, here is what I come up with regarding Law of Agency: the relationship of a person (called the agent) who acts on behalf of another person, company, or government, known as the principal. "Agency" may arise when an employer (principal) and employee (agent) ask someone to make a delivery or name someone as an agent in a contract. The basic rule is that the principal becomes responsible for the acts of the agent, and the agent's acts are like those of the principal (Latin: respondeat superior). Factual questions arise such as: was the agent in the scope of employment when he/she ran down the little child, got drunk and punched someone, or sold impure wheat? There is also the problem of whether the principal acted in such a way as to make others believe someone was his agent-this is known as "apparent" or "ostensible" authority. When someone who is or is not an employee uses company business cards, finance documents, or a truck with the company logo, such use gives apparent authority as an agent
