Credit Card Debt Issues - Assignment Example

For the debt collectors, it is revealed that they earn commissions based on the amounts they collect. Consequently, the debt collectors have been employing underhand tactics, harassment, and even breaking the law, to accomplish desired targets. Some of the debt collectors have even resulted to using coercion and force in the pursuit of collecting amounts due. Some agencies have even resulted in breaking and entering personal property to recover debts due.

The subsequent episodes show how a portion of the population is taking advantage of people in credit card debt through fraudulent means. Additionally, it is later revealed that credit companies, may be lying regarding credit card debt, repayment plans, and interest rates. Credit card firms have also begun selling accounts of customers in debt to collection agencies, which is illegal.

The last two episodes are more advisory and reflective. They emphasize the fact that, in yester years, American citizens did not accrue so much data. In the last episode, viewers are advised against falling into the trap of credit card debt, and those already in debt should be vigilant. Indeed, credit card debt is termed the next big crisis in America.

Caveat emptor is a legal principle that confers to the buyer, the responsibility of ensuring that the good/service bought, is operational and in good condition. In the legal and business sense, the credit card companies were not liable since the parties were competent. Moreover, the credit card companies acted in good faith, since the economy was booming and they could not foretell the financial crisis (Andrews, 2011).

I am sympathetic to some of the people who lost their assets to credit card companies. However, in legal terms, I do not think credit card companies took advantage of them.

The role of the government is to advocate for legislation that mandates all civilians, signing contracts with credit companies, to have a lawyer present.

In my opinion, credit card contracts do not meet the standards of oppression since, even though they are ignorant, the other parties are mentally competent.

As a judge, I would rule against the 30-year-old because his history suggests he is mentally competent. Furthermore, the primary reason for his inability to repay the debt is financial irresponsibility and the credit crunch.

The contract is conscionable because the janitor is partly responsible for his financial position. The janitor failed to disclose valuable information to his employer leading to job termination.

I think it’s a good idea because it will reduce cases of oppression and coercion. If the idea is adopted, the credit card company loses financially while civilians gain through financial prudence.

It is racially and economically discriminatory because it would lock out most of the minorities in need of credit. This is because a majority of them are not highly educated.