Texas Fair Debt Collection Statute - Assignment Example

Student Name: Course Name: Tutor: Date: Question 1 Trade is an act that oversees the exchange of goods, services, as well as money between two consenting parties. The process by which trade takes place is usually voluntary and asymmetric in nature. Trade is triggered by the occurrence of needs which triggers the parties involved to exchange their possession in an aim to satisfy their needs. This aspect of trade creates an opportunity that has over the years been used in a candid way or at times in a canning way. This is based on the fact that one party in the trade transaction may posses the need of disposing the asset being traded following his realization of a default feature that the asset contained. This usually raises concern that the realization of the defaults by the potential buyer may deter the selling of the asset. This has created situations in which the sellers take advantage of the buyer’s lack of knowledge to persuade them to buying the asset. This has created the need of the government to protect the welfare of the consumer thus giving rise to the formation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act (Adriana 10). This is an act that is operational in Texas with the aim of protecting consumers against false, misleading, deceptive business practices, unconscionable actions and breaches of warranty that may be carried out by the sellers. This is achieved by providing trade procedures that are both efficient and economical. The act has the aim of increasing the accountability as well as ethical standards in which business is carried out within the state. Casey who in this case is a consumer was willing to acquire a house by purchasing it and did not have knowledge of the history of the property that she was purchasing. In reference to her case with the purchase of the asset, she suffered from unconscionable unlawful acts from the seller of the property. This is an act that acts in reference to a situation in which the seller takes advantage of the consumer’s lack of knowledge, ability, experience or capacity to a degree that can be termed as unfair (Adriana 50). In this case it is unfair in the sense that the seller had full knowledge of the history of events that had transpired in that house and knew the consequences that they would have to whoever resided in the house. The memories of the brutal murder of the sellers mother might as well be viewed as the reason as to which the seller was selling the premises in an aim of getting rid of them. The seller of the property also offered misleading information to the consumer based on the fact that he denied offering information to the consumer that he knew was crucial to the sell of the house. This is an act that according to the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act is termed as a deceptive and misleading act. This is based on the fact that the seller failed to disclose information that he knew concerning the house that he was selling with the intention of inducing the consumer into the transaction (Adriana 60). This can also be viewed in the sense that he had the house painted afresh in an aim to conceal the information by offering at appealing appearance of the house. The seller of the house had the realization that a disclosure of the information of the history of the house would deter the sale of the house to a potential customer thus failing to provide it. Casey in this case can file a legal claim as stipulated by the act in which she seeks a repay in the damages that were caused by the acquisition of the house from the seller. In this case she can send a letter to the seller in which she notifies the seller of her complains of the transaction and seeking a refund as damages. Depending on the response of the seller, Casey can file a suit in which she seeks a payment for the damages that she has incurred as a result of the deceptive trade practices by the seller. These are damages that have the remedies of both the economical as well as mental anguish that she has suffered after the purchase of the house. This is based on the fact that she has suffered economic difficulties as a result of the distraction that has been brought up by the nightmares of the history of the house. This caused her to loose her job and ought to be catered for by the damages that ought to be paid to her by the seller. She also suffered from mental anguish that was the cause of her loss of her job. This is based on the fact that she suffered from distress after the realization of the nature of the house that she had purchased and this caused her the nightmares that she suffered. Casey has a high likelihood that she will prevail in recovering the damages from the seller. This is based on the fact that it is the seller’s mother who was brutally murdered in the house indicating that the seller had full knowledge of the information. This shows that the seller failed to reveal the information to Casey in an aim to induce her to purchasing the asset with full knowledge that a revelation of the information would have made Casey fail to purchase the house. It also reveals that the seller maliciously painted the house in an aim to make it appear new so as to influence consumers into purchasing the house by hiding the blood trails that were on the walls. In this case it is evident that the seller took advantage of Casey based on the fact that she was new to the area and did not have knowledge of the history of the house. This raises her likelihood of being compensated by the seller who used unlawful trade practices to induce Casey into the transaction. Question 2 A debt is usually an asset which is owed to a creditor by the debtor. It is created when the creditors agrees to lend his asset to the debtor in agreement that the asset will be repaid over a given period. However, financial setback may occur affecting the debtor in a way that he has difficulties in repaying the debt that he owes the creditor as per the agreed time. The creditor has a legal obligation of contacting the debtor to ask for the assets owed to him and may contract an external party to collect the debt on his behalf. The external party which is the debt collection company is charged with the mandate of collecting the debt that that the debtor owes the creditor. This happened in the case of Casey where the creditors who she owed contracted debt collection companies to collect the debt that she owed them (McNamara Law Office 4). The debt collectors have a legal obligation in which they are expected to operate. These are the laws that govern their operations based on the fact that they can result to oppressive measure that are aimed at frustrating the debtor to paying the debt. This is based on the fact that the debt collectors operate by paying the creditors a certain value that was owed to him by the debtor and taking over the debt in an aim to refund themselves of the amount that they parted with. In this case the creditor usually sells the debt to the debt collection company for less than its face value. This aspect of the transaction has resulted in situation which the debt collection company uses extreme measures on the debtor in the attempt to collect the debt (McNamara Law Office 4). The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is an act that was put in place in an aim to protect the debtor from unlawful practices that may be practiced by the debt collector in the collection of the debt. As with the case with Casey the debt collection services have violated the law by using unlawful methods of debt collection against her. This is based on the fact that according to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the debt collector is prohibited from using threats or coercion as the means of collecting the debt from the debtor. RGM, the company collecting the debt for the oven uses threatening measures as their collection strategy against Casey. This as with the act is illegal as they threaten Casey that she will be arrested and jailed for the nonpayment of her debt. This is however to take place without proper court proceedings through which Casey can lawfully be arrested and jailed for nonpayment of debt (Angela 50). However, in regard to Casey’s case, she was willing to repay her debt but had failed following the financial setback that had hit her. GBH, the company collecting the debt for the television set uses threatening measures on Casey stating that she will lose her possessions for the nonpayment of her debt. This is however without court proceeding which are the legal procedures through which this can happen. It is lawful for the collection company to threaten to exercise statutory contractual rights of seizure through which a court proceeding is not required. However, this is not the course that the debt collection companies took thus violating the laws as stipulated by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the act the debt collector is prohibited from contacting another person other than the consumer representing that the consumer is willfully refusing to pay the debt in dispute when the consumer has notified the debt collector of the dispute (Angela 55). This happened with both debt collectors as they contacted other parties other than the consumer concerning the debt that Casey owed. This is a violation of the law as stipulated by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the debt collectors can be charged with using threat and coercion measures in their debt collection. The debt collectors according to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act use harassment and abuse in their debt collection. This is based on the way that they yell at Casey when she contacted them in an aim to work something out over the debt that she owed. Casey has the legal obligation of filing a misdemeanor charge which she is expected to do within a period of one anniversary after the date of the alleged violation. In this case the debt collectors can be charged fines chat range between one hundred and fine hundred dollars for each violation that they made of the law (Angela 60). Casey can also make a sue for injunctive relief to prevent the violation of the collection protection act as well as actual damages that she has sustained as a result of the violation by the collecting agencies of the law. According to the act, Casey may claim for a bond for the violation of the laws by the debt collection companies. In this way she is entitled to attorney’s fees which are reasonable related to the amount of work that is performed as well as the costs. For the violations that the companies made they are entitled to an amount that is not less than one hundred dollars that is titled to the person who maintained the violation acts. As with the case with Casey and the debt collection companies the law is applicable in the sense that the companies violated the debt collection acts as stipulated by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In this case Casey can recover the damages caused to her as a result of the violation acts by the debt collectors. This is based on the fact that they caused her mental torture that can amount to the payment of a bond by the companies amounting to $ 10,000 each. Question 3 Consumer protection acts are aimed at protecting the consumer from the sale of faulty goods by the seller. However, the protection is applicable in certain situations while in some it does not apply. This is based on the fact that the fault may not be as a result of a responsibility by the seller or the manufacturer but mistakes made by the consumer. In regards to the case with Bob and Mary, neither the manufacturer nor the consumer was aware of the fault in the vehicle. However, in this case the manufacturer takes the liability of the fault in the vehicles based on the fact that it was a mechanical problem that resulted during the manufacture of the vehicle. As with the case with Mary the company is responsible for the misfortune that happened to her. This is based on the fact that she did not have any knowledge of faults in the asset as she was purchasing it (Acts 2009 4). Conversely, the manufacturer also did not have knowledge of the fault but as expected as a basis of production he had the responsibility of making sure that his product did not have any faults. The fault in the cars has been reported all over an indication that Toyota did not have knowledge of the fault and can not be termed as having intentionally put out the faulty products. However, the company may not have done everything within its power in making sure that it prevents accidents of the nature from happening. This means that the company can be sued for failed actions in protecting the consumer from damage that can be caused by something that they made and marketed. The charge is directed to the system through which the company inspects its merchandise to ensure its quality before it is released to the market. This is on account of the fact that either an employee was at fault or a piece of equipment or a combination of both in the inspection process that led to the damage that was witnessed by Mary (Weisberg & Meyers 54). This makes the company liable for the damage that its asset caused to Mary which means that the company ought to pay for the medical bills that Mary incurred during her hospitalization. This is however, following inspection to affirm that the accident that Mary was involved in was as a result of the fault by the manufacturer and not her fault in the driving. On this perspective the company is also liable to paying Mary the damage that was caused to her wages as well as the pain and suffering that she suffered following the experience. The company also bears the responsibility of refunding the motorist with whom Mary had an accident with. This is based on the fact that the accident was not as a result of reckless driving by any of the drivers involved but a fault that can be attributed to the manufacturer. This is on account of the fact that the fault in Mary’s car was the cause of the accident and is the responsibility of the manufacturer. This compels Toyota to pay for the damages that were caused to the other motorist in the accident as well as to Mary (Weisberg & Meyers 60). Bob on realization of the fault that the vehicle contained decided to sell it. He however, made a loss in the sale to the tune of two thousand dollars that he feels is to be blamed to the company. However, in this situation the company cannot be held responsible for the loss that Bob incurred following the sale of the faulty car. This is on the basis of the fact that Bob did not contact the manufacturer to make a claim of the fault that was in the vehicle of which the company rectified by calling back the vehicle that it had made and contained the fault. In this case the financial loss that Bob suffered can not be blamed on the company and the company can not take liability of it. Bob ought to have contacted the manufacturer on realization of the fault in which case he would have held the company liable to the risk that the vehicle posed. This would have compelled the company to either refund Bob the money that he had paid for the vehicle or the fault would have been repaired by the company at its expense (Weisberg & Meyers 54). Though the company can be blamed for the fault that the vehicles contained Bobs actions do not compel the company to cater for the loss that he made. Bob is not entitled to a refund by the company on the basis of the fact that he delayed in making a complaint or returning the good to the manufacturer. The sale of the faulty vehicle can be taken to mean that Bob had accepted the faulty state of the vehicle in which case he can not claim for a refund from the company. The problems that Bob is facing from the faulty aspect of the vehicle that he had purchased can not be attributed to the company and it can not be held responsible for it. This is based on the fact that they are as a result of the mistakes that Bob made in his decision making. This is in argument of the fact that Toyota made a recall of the vehicles that had the problem which is an indication that the company took responsibility of situation and sought to correct the situation. However, Bob was not consultative enough to contact the manufacturer and decided to sell the vehicle at a loss. The loss that he incurred can only be attributed to his poor decision making for which case the company cannot be held responsible (Weisberg & Meyers 60). Works cited Adriana N. Cause For Legal Action. Injuries From Faulty Products. 2010. Viewed August 5, 2010 from Angela Clark. Your Consumer Rights: Pocket Lawyer Series. New York: Taylor and Francis, 2003. Acts 2009. Business and commerce code. 2009. Viewed August 5, 2010 from Federal Trade Commission. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Viewed August 5, 2010 from < McNamara Law Office. Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act (DTPA). 2000. Viewed August 5, 2010 from National Consumer Agency. Faulty goods FAQs. Viewed August 5, 2010 from Weisberg & Meyers. Texas Fair Debt Collection Statute. 2001. Viewed August 5, 2010 from Read More