I know everyone says that when negotiating a settlement you should pay only for deletion. A person usually ends up paying more for the deletion. We all know CA's and OC's would prefer not to delete the collection which makes negotiating a settlement harder. Now what if we get a CA that refuses no matter what to go the deletion route. This would lead to two different routes, pay or not pay. I have been thinking about some wording for a settlement. This should get around the negotiating for deletion. This would require that the CRA's are still taking your disputes(i.e. EXP previously investigated). If you put something like this in your settlement: OC and/or CA will not discuss, confirm its existence, or verify that I(persons name) ever had an account and/or have done business with OC or CA with any 3rd party. Something like this. Basically it states not to verify or even say they had anything to do with me with anyone(i.e. CRA's). Now if the CRA comes back and verifies the account, you either have them on not doing the investigation or the CA or OC with verifying the account. There would be some type of money involved if they broke the agreement. Would this get by the pay for deletion? Any thoughts on this?
At the end of the day, you're asking for a confidentiality agreement with a liquidated damages provision. You may or may not get the confidentiality agreement but nobody will agree to liquidated damages.
The liquidated damages could go both ways. It could say something like: If either party breaks agreement they will owe damaged party $500. But even if this isnt in the agreement could you still sue the person who broke the agreement? I would guess you could. The confidentiality agreement would get you through the pay for delete, would it not? They can't even mention the account with anyone.
