The Fair Debt Collection Act in the Case with Casey - Assignment Example

Name : xxxxxxxxxxx Institution : xxxxxxxxxxx Title : USA Commercial Law Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxxxx @2010 Part 1 Section A 1 Economy. 2 Limits tort claims to only economic loss. 3 The transaction must be over $50. 4 1 year. 5 Stocks and bonds. 6 Let the buyer beware. 7 50,000,000. 8 American. 9 Not call the consumer once the consumer tells the debt collector that the employee does not allow such calls. 10 Pain and suffering. 11 Owes more than her house is worth. 12 None of the above. 13 30 days. 14 Negotiation. 15 Damages for the cost to repair a defective product. 16 More than one of the above. 17 Punitive damages. 18 60. 19 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Act. 20 Degree of reprehensibility of defendants conduct Section B 1 False. 2 True. 3 False. 4 True. 5 False. 6 False. 7 False. 8 False. 9 True. 10 False. Part 2 Question A Introduction Trade is an exchange of goods, services as well as money that is voluntary in nature. It is an asymmetric exchange that takes place between a consumer and the seller who is the owner of the asset being sold or the person rendering the service. A consumer as described by the law is a person who is willing to acquire an asset by means of purchasing it as well as other means that facilitate the exchange between him and the seller. The seller is usually the owner of the asset being sold and the demand for the asset by the consumer compels him to purchase the asset from the seller. The fact that the consumer is in demand for the asset raises the need for the consumer to be protected from exploitation by the seller. This creates the need for the government to get involved in trade to protect the consumer from any form of exploitation by the seller (Richard, 2005). The case with Casey Deception is a misconduct of the ethics of trade which happens when the seller takes advantage of the consumer through deceitful means to course him to purchase the asset. These are regulated by the Deceptive Trade Practices Act that was formulated to protect the consumer from being exploited (Acts, 2009). This applies to the case with Casey in which the seller took advantage of the fact that she was new to the area to sell her a house that he was getting rid. This is based on the devastating information that the seller had. A deceptive act happens when the seller is aware of a shortcoming with the asset in sale and refuses to disclose the information to the consumer in an aim of coursing him to purchase it. The seller of the house took advantage of Casey since she was new in the area and never knew of the history of the house. This is expressed by how the seller painted the house to disclose evidence and make the house appealing. The seller intended to dispose the house taking advantage of the consumer by painting it to make it appear as new. Casey in this case can file a claim on the seller of the house with accusation of deceptive trade practices (Richard, 2005). This is in addition to the fact that the deceptive trade practices by the seller have had massive implication on Casey for which the seller is to compensate her. The seller is accused of unconscionable acts according to the Deceptive Trade Practices Act in which case the seller took advantage of the consumer’s lack of knowledge. The seller is charged of failing to disclose information to Casey, intending to induce her into the transaction. The seller knew the magnitude of the information, which would make Casey to fail entering the transaction. The claims that Casey can make against the seller include added damages in which the seller is accused of making the deceptive acts intentionally as well as knowingly as well as the damage that the act caused Casey. Casey can recover compensation of the deceptive trade practices that the seller had on her in an aim to induce her into the transaction. This is based on the fact that the seller was aware of the vital information regarding the house that he concealed it from Casey (Acts, 2009). The seller as well painted the house lately so as to hide evidence of the information as well as make the house appear appealing. Casey can as well make a recovery of the economic and mental anguish damages that the act by the seller caused her. This is in line with the fact that the horrifying information that Casey discovered about the house she had purchased she suffered massive loss. This is in line with the loss of the job as well as the mental anguish that she suffered following the realization of the devastating history of the house. Casey is as well to recover court costs as well as attorney’s fees that she had to incur following the deceptive acts on her by the seller of the house. This is inclusive of the charges that Casey incurs in her pursuit for justice from the seller. Casey can as well recover additional damages are dependant on the findings of the court on the motive that the seller had of making the deceptive acts. This is on the basis of the fact whether the cats by the seller were made intentionally as well as knowingly. In this case the seller is guilty of making the acts knowingly based on the fact that it was his mother who suffered the attack (McNamara Law Office, 2000). Question B Debt A debt is a term that is used in reference to a means of purchase in which the consumer uses future purchasing power in the purchase of an asset. This is a situation in which the creditor enters into an agreement in which he agrees to lend a sum of asset to the debtor in which the debtor is to pay for the asset later. The collection of the debt sum has proved as a sensitive factor in the sense that the debtor can exploit the debtor on basis of acquiring the debt amount (Card report, 1996). This is on the basis of the fact that the creditor can take advantage of the debt owed to him by the debtor to exploit him in terms of getting more than is expected. The creditor can as well use crude methods in the collection of the debt which is unjust. This has given rise to the Fair Debt Collection Act which seeks to protect the debtor from exploitation by the creditor. The law allows the creditor to allocate an independent body in the collection of the debt though the allocated body is required to follow the laws as stipulated by the fair debt collection act (Aaron, 2003). The case with Casey is one in which both creditors gave the role of debt collection to independent companies. The debt that Casey has resulting from the goods that she acquired has been hard to pay following the failure in her business despite the fact that she is willing to clear of the debt. The companies charged with the task of debt collection go against the law based on the fact that they carry out activities that are not allowed in the collection of a debt. This has the implication that Casey can file claims against the debt collection companies on the basis of the unfair acts that they have had on her. The debt collection company that was collecting the debt of the oven defies the laws by threatening Casey to have her arrested and jailed for the debt. This according to the act is unlawful on the basis of the fact that the creditor is not allowed to threaten the debtor of arrested in the collection of the debt (Attorney General of Texas, 2010). GBH, the company collecting the debt for the television set is as well liable to this charge on the basis of the fact that it threatened Casey that she would loose her house for the failure to pay the debt. This is unlawful based on the fact that the debtor can only loose his asset to the creditors following a court order. These acts by the companies can as well be termed as misleading representation on the basis of the fact that the threats can not be legally taken. The law directs that the debt collector does not have the right of contacting another party apart from the debtor regarding the debt (Card report, 1996). This is however with exceptions then this can happen. This is an act that the debt collection companies violated. Casey can as well make claim on the damages that she suffers as a result of the illegal acts that the debt collection companies made. Casey can recover certain charges under the Fair Debt Collection Act on the basis of the fact that the debt collection companies violated the law in their collection of the debt. This is in the event that Casey sues the debt collector in court in a period of one period after the violation of the law. In this event Casey can recover damages over the violation of the law by the debt collection companies. This is in account of the laws that they violated as discussed above as well as the damages that their actions caused to Casey. She can as well recover the expenses that she incurred as fees for the attorney as well as the court costs (Attorney General of Texas, 2010). It is as well considerable that Casey can be recover damages to the tune of one million dollars based on the damages that the actions of the debt collection companies. This is based on the fact that their action led to her loss of employment as well as the psychological damage that their actions had on her. Question C In the course of trade, the seller might happen to sell an asset that is defective to the consumer taking advantage of the consumer lack of knowledge on the defect. This aspect of trade creates the needs for the government to protect the consumer in such event as well as give a guide line on the such a crisis can be handled. The law allows for a smooth solution between the consumer and the seller in such a case based on the nature of the event (Knott & Miller, 2010). This is in line with the fact that the seller might have been aware of the defect thus making his act more of a deception. The solution can only be applied in a situation in which the seller was not aware of the defect and the damage that has occurred to the asset is accidental resulting from the defect and not a mistake by the consumer of the asset. The case with Bob and his sister Mary can not be termed as intentional based on the fact that the company was not aware of the defect a realization they made following the complains by the public. The case with defective assets results in the return of the asset to the seller who can either repair the asset or refund the consumer. The fact that the company was not aware of the defect can be seen in the way Toyota handles the situation by recalling the cars for repair. Bob did a mistake in the fact that on the realization of the defect he decided to sell the car in an aim of getting rid of it. This was a mistake based on the fact that according to the law he ought to have consulted the company from where he had purchased the car. In this case Bob would have had a chance to make a claim on the company but following his sale of the car this can not happen. Though Bob may prove that he had purchased the asset from the company in a faulty state the decision that he made of selling the asset indicates that Bob had accepted the asset in which case the company can mot be held liable for the damage that Bob has incurred as a result (Larson, 2003). Mary alternatively has a likelihood of making claims against Toyota on the basis of the fact that the defective asset that she had purchased has caused her much harm. In this case the company is to meet the bills that Mary incurred while at the hospital as well as the damages that the accident had on the other motorist. Mary in this case stands a better chance of recovering her damages based on the fact that she can prove her claim to the company. This is in line with the consumer protection acts in which the consumer is can make a claim for personal injury compensation which in this case applies to Both Marry as well as the other motorist. The motorist is to be compensated based on the fact that his involvement in the accident was not as a result of his failure but the defect that had been made by Toyota. This makes Toyota liable for the damages that this motorist incurred. Mary can as well make a claim for a refund based on the fact that during the accident her car was damaged something that Toyota needs to take liability of. This is based on the fact that as a result of the errors made by the company. Mary has suffered the loss of her car that she had purchased lately. The fact that the company is to pay for the expenses that Mary has incurred is in line with the protection act in which the consumer has the opportunity to make a claim for accident compensation (Stephen, 2010). The company is as well liable to pay damages to Mary on the basis of the fact that the error that they made has had an impact on her life. This is based on the fact that she will take a long time to recover and may not go to work. This is a factor that needs to be addressed by the company as damages made to Mary. The damages that Mary incurred during the accident which includes the laptop that she had in the car are as well to be compensated by the company. Bibliography Aaron L. 2003. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Retrieved August 15, 2010 from Acts. 2009. Business and commerce code. Retrieved August 15, 2010 from Attorney Attorney General of Texas. 2010. Debt Collection. Retrieved August 15, 2010 from Card report. 1996. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Retrieved August 15, 2010 from Knott, B. & Miller, L. 2010. Practice Areas. Retrieved August 15, 2010 from Larson A. 2003. Product Liability Law - Protecting Consumers from Defective Products. Retrieved August 15, 2010 from McNamara Law Office. 2000. Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act. RichRetrieved August 15, 2010 from Richard M. 2005. The Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Retrieved August 15, 2010 from Stephen G. 2010. Returning Faulty Goods - Your Consumer Rights. Retrieved August 15, 2010 from Read More