It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Americans Falling Behind on Credit Card Payments at Alarming Rate

page: 11
8
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
Buyer beware, so as long as you sign the contract, the contract holder has the right to do what ever they want as long as they can justify it through the contract?


If its written into the terms of the contract yes. I don't know any jury that is going to find the situation unfair or unreasonable considering there are probably thousands of other people that signed the very same contracts for the same credit cards who are paying their bills and aren't sitting in front of a jury.




posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Well, that's just factually wrong - at least in the United States. The courts have held time and again that it is NOT the job of the court to determine whether the terms and conditions of any contract are fair, and they have to my knowledge made only a very few exceptions to this general rule. From the supreme court to district courts, the judicial branch has empathetically stated that it is not the place of judges to determine what constitutes "fair" rules or regulations in regards to the contents of contracts between two parties.

The courts place in contract dispute arises when the contract terms are manipulated in a way not allowed by the original contract, or when an event occurs in the contract for which liquidated damages or parallel contractual restitution are not provided for. That's it.

Credit agreements come with BINDING ARBITRATION, NOT MEDIATION. There is a huge difference. Arbitration is binding and cannot be appealed to a court of law - it is a extra judicial relief method used to stop increasing case loads on the court system.

Obviously banks do share in responsibility for loaning money to people with bad credit. They do this by acknowledging they are likely to default, so they reduce their risk by charging higher interest rates.

Please stop spreading legal misinformation. You can go to the court all day and cry about the terms of your credit contract, and the judge won't care. You have no right what YOU consider to be a fair contract, you have a right to have all the stipulations of that contract available to you before you sign, and you have the right to not be coerced into a contract. That's it.


apc

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by BluByWho
Call them all up and offer 40% of what you owe...

Actually I would recommend going one at a time and not calling the next until the first is settled. Especially if they are old, bad debts. Don't want to wake them up and have two dozen collectors calling all of a sudden.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Actually I would recommend going one at a time and not calling the next until the first is settled. Especially if they are old, bad debts. Don't want to wake them up and have two dozen collectors calling all of a sudden.

The only reason I say call them all is because sometimes some companies will give you better or longer terms than others to pay on a settlement, some require a lump sum while others will let you make 6-12 months worth of payments on the settlement. That way by calling them all he can figure out the best plan of action based on the terms the various creditors offer. I would say pay one off at a time. Oh yea, and when you call in use a calling card or a pay phone, unless you want them calling you at home/on your cell all the time.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Sorry gents, but the truth is that contracts are disputed in court all the time.

People have, and should have the right to challenge contracts when they find the terms to be unfair, or to challenge interpretations of contracts.

Sadly the repub congress and judicial system have managed to tip the scales ever more in favor of businesses, but that doesn't mean that we should stand for this.

There are very good reasons for establishing what terms can or can not be placed in a contract, and what should be considered a legal contract.

Essentially some of you people advocate legalization of fraud, and that is simply wrong.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Oh yeah, if you don't believe me that contracts are disputed in courts regularly, even on conditions of fairness, do a goggle search as I did to verify that what I was saying is correct. There are many examples of these types of disputes in court.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Again, please stop spreading legal misinformation. No has disputed contracts are not brought up in court action, but they are rarely ever brought up because one side perceives the contents of the contract to be "unfair." When people do occasionally do this (a majority of lawyers know it wont work so only a few even get to court), it gets thrown out every single time. Can you provide an example of just ONE case that was not overturned where a court found in favor of a plantiff ONLY on the grounds that the court thought the contents of the contract were "unfair"?

As I have already said, a court looks at only a few things in contracts - and none of them have to deal with whether or not the contents of a contract is perceived as fair. The court examines (1) whether all terms and conditions of the contract were provided to both parties before agreement, (2) whether either party was coerced into agreeing to the contract, and (3) what remedies the contract offers for externalities. That's it.

And by the way, your socialist badge is showing. Making your information even more questionable.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by BluByWho


If banks lent money only to people whom they knew couldn't pay, using fractional reserve banking, they wouldn't have the ability to lend out any more money because they wouldn't have enough reserves on hand because nobody would be repaying their loans....



Well..........that's the rub with this situation !

the Banks quickly sold those loans/mortgages(of all creative sorts)
and took those 'loans' off-the-books

which means 'They' according to lending/asset/collateral rules,
were permitted to make more [fraudulent
-according to the Spirit of the Rules- Loans

and those additional Loans not were not in conflict with the 'Letter' of the banking rules ....
which included most mortgage or credit Loans to the populace.

but the bank managers knew fully well they were skirting the legal requirements... but they decided 'to hell with it' because of the commissions and bonuses they created for themselves...
and the lower tiered employees shrugged their shoulders and thought;
I will retain my job/position if i acquiese...i stand to get recognition or a bigger bonus because i present myself as a 'Team Player' in cointinuing
the Fraud & Scams



hey, this try at a post is set up so that i must delete a lot of this train of thought to be able to re-spell or modify the content i'm presenting....

and i'm not going to enter that Catch-22 proposition
but i'm happy that the EDIT isn't in that ~losing ~ mode





[edit on 27-12-2007 by St Udio]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


They know they won't be able to pay. That's why interest rates are spiking - to recover the losses.


While I agree that the interest rates correlate with delinquencies rates, I challenge your assumption that they "know" that their borrowers would not be able to pay.


I hope every single one of them fails to recover the losses and closes their doors. That's what's happening today with the "mortgage crisis."


If the credit card issuers will go south, does it mean that we won't be able to use credit cards anymore? Is that what you want? I personally hope for a different scenario where people stop buying crap on extended credit. Seriously, I saw a family which looked decidedly not so rich (let's just assume that for a second, ok?), and they were buying DVDs and dog food. I'm sorry, but if you proverbial is in a vice, financially, you switch to rice and beans, take the dog to the shelter and watch free DVDs from your local library. That's what you do, instead of borrowing and then pleading ignorance to the real cost of credit.




I would hope so too, but I'm not very optimistic.


apc

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Sorry I should've clarified. Banks that offer credit to individuals unable to demonstrate an ability to pay back the possible amount borrowed (in other words, banks that give 18 year olds $10,000 credit limits)... I hope they go under.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   
I'm not implying that you can go to court and get a contract voided simply because you claim it is not fair. That is far too simplistic. Contracts are limited in what requirement and conditions can be allowed. This doesn't prevent business entities from trying to maneuver around these legal limitations, and when you find yourself in an agreement that you find to be unfair, you can and should research whether or not the contract violates any legal restrictions. A classic example of a contract restriction is that a contract can not be made with a minor, who is under the age of 18. Such a contract has no legal existence. It has been determined that a minor can not be considered to be capable of making such decision, and therefore it is not fair to obligate a minor in binding contracts.

There are many statutes labeled as fairness acts, and laws that prevent specific contractual requirements because it has been determined that these types of requirements are not fair.

www.forizs-dogali.com...

www.lctjournal.washington.edu...

"Although several courts refused to enforce terms contained in clickwrap agreements, these cases do not call into question the enforceability of clickwrap agreements. Rather, they illustrate the fact that courts will look at the actual terms of such agreements and may invalidate specific terms based on traditional contract concepts and their application to a new generation of contracts."

Just because you sign a contract doesn't mean you have to follow that contract, there are plenty of times when contracts violate legal requirements, which allows a person to void said contract. Contracts are limited on what requirements can be written for very valid reasons.

Our government has a responsibility to protect its citizens from crooked or unfair business practices. Unfortunately, the fight to hold onto our rights continues uninterrupted.

By the way, neocons like to throw around the socialist accusation, when most of them don't have a clue what socialism is.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 07:29 PM
link   
I have no sympathy for banks who grant huge lines of credit to people with limited incomes.

Why should my tax dollars be spent protecting these lenders for foolishly lending money to people who could not afford to pay that money back.

Banks charge unreasonable interest rates to people they consider to be credit risks, so then when these credit risks default, banks should absorb the loss. They were willing to take the risk to get the high interest rates, why should the courts get involved. Let the banks fend for themselves.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Your political ideology blinds you. I am a libertarian, but nice try
You will find in life that labeling everyone who disagrees with you "neocon" only makes what you say even less valid than it already is.

You have proven exactly what I said. Courts will not and do not make rulings on whether contracts are "fair" - they don't care. A judge will not decide. They will make rulings on the conditions I previously cited, and nothing more. You posted... what I already said. As such, I will spare us from the endless Supreme Court rulings which declare that the court will not decide on the innate fairness of a contract, only on which parts of conflict with contract law or do not address some externality which has occurred.

So you can whine and complain that your interest rate isn't fair, and the court won't care. You can whine and complain about your credit card fees, and the court won't care. They will look to see that both parties were not coerced, and that each party abided by good faith contract law.

I have no sympathy for people who take out loans they cannot afford. They deserve to have their house taken from them. Why should my tax dollars be spent protecting peoples stupidity? Unfortunately we already do that to some extent, why expand it?

Banks charge interest rates that are perfectly in line with the higher credit risk that some people have. When those risks default, the bank should take the property - or if its unsecured - get a judgement issued against the debtor. They were willing to give credit to people who would not normally be able to get it. Let the people who take out loans they cannot afford fend for themselves.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:22 PM
link   
People who live in glass houses should not throw rocks.

I never claimed that courts make rulings on whether or not contracts are fair. Courts make all of their rulings based on what laws exist. Laws are written to establish what is fair in business contracts, and it is those laws that the courts follow. You are debating claims that I never made.

If you are in a contract and you do not think the terms and conditions are fair, you might be able to find a legal reason for your belief that the terms are unfair, and if you do, you might be able to void the contract or certain conditions of the contract. This is a reality, and it happens all the time, and I have already provided links to prove my claims. What we need are the laws rewritten to protect the public from crooked business practices, as they once were, not to mention some enforcement of the truth in advertising laws, and the hiring of illegal immigrants. The current mortgage crisis and run up of credit card debt is a direct result of the contract on America where the neocons who took over congress weakened all the rules and regulations preventing the kind of crooked business practices that have created this mess.

Your tax dollars are being spent to repossess peoples homes, and clean up the mess created by the crooked business practices of our lending and finance institutions. You just don't realize this. The bailout has already began, and it will cost all of us who did not engage in such activity a great deal. We all are going to wind up paying for this giant mess, including you. I recognize that the borrowers dug their own grave and share in the responsibility, but the lenders are even more guilty in my opinion. The lenders made a lot of money from these crooked business activities, and they knew what they were doing was wrong, and now the rest of us are going to have to pay for this mess. The borrowers most certainly will be punished, but the lenders will most likely get away without having to face the consequences of their actions, and that is wrong.


apc

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Why is it whenever someone claims to be a Libertarian, they're usually anything but? That whole... not using force to deprive others of their liberty or property... they always seem to forget. But hey, who cares if some number in a computer tells another computer to triple the interest rate on an account. They can always hand over their property if they can't make the payments anymore, right?



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   
If government is not going to get involved, then the government should not act on behalf of the lender or the borrower.

If the government, which means the courts and law enforcement agencies, are going to get involved to protect the interests of the lenders, then they should also act in protecting the interests of the borrower's.

If the government not going to create and enforce laws against predatory lending practices, then the government should not create laws to protect lenders from the consequences of their predatory lending practices. These private entities can smear the borrowers credit records, and stop loaning money to these people, and eat the losses. Getting court orders and all that, no way, deal with it in a market solution.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by apc
 


Oh so sorry, nice try but your wrong again. You don't really OWN property if you have a loan on it. The property is still owned by whoever holds the loan. It only becomes your property once no loans are held against it. I suggest you read John Locke sometime. Rosseau too. I would advise against musing on social contract theory until you do. Just sayin'.

Why is it people whose own political ideology falls like a house of cards take so much time to analyze other peoples politics?

[edit on 27-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


I agree the government should not get involved. The banks should do whatever they can within the limits of the law to take back property that is defaulted on. If it the banks fail, oh well. Government should not protect the banks. Property owners should try to get the property refinanced at a rate they can afford. If they can't, oh well.

By the way:


Originally posted by poet1b
I never claimed that courts make rulings on whether or not contracts are fair.


Oh really?


Originally posted by poet1b
People have, and should have the right to challenge contracts when they find the terms to be unfair, or to challenge interpretations of contracts.



Originally posted by poet1bc
contracts are disputed in courts regularly, even on conditions of fairness,


Oopsie! Should double check what you post. But I'm sure you'll start spinning what you "really" meant now. In any case - we agree - so let's just not go there.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]


apc

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 


Oh, I'm sorry. The thread is about credit cards so I just assumed that's what you were talking about. You want to talk about foreclosure or repossession? Because that's quite different.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by apc
 


It doesn't matter - it extends to whatever you own if loans exist against it. Credit card purchases are unsecured - the bank can't take what you buy if you don't pay. Thats too bad in my opinion. When you buy something on a credit card, in my philosophy the bank still owns it. You don't pay, they get it. If they can't sell it for what you owe, you owe the difference. But that isn't how the world works, unfortunately.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join