Speeding Ticket Stumper?

Quote: weaselman

Yes, you can actually. The cell company would have to sue you, and secure a judgment, and then, if you still refuse to pay, the judge may order you arrested.
The license suspension is akin to termination of the contract. Cell company can terminate your service if you violate terms of contract, and, much the same, the government can revoke your driving privileges if you refuse to obey the rules.
It is a crime to refuse to obey the order of the court. Doesn't matter who you owe.
If I am one day late with my credit card bill, how does it cause them any harm at all, leave alone 45 bucks they want to charge me for that?

In the real world, a court judgment may exist, but collection is up to the successful plaintiff. Yes, someone who does not pay a court-ordered judgment is technically in violation of a court order, but they don't send the gendarmes after someone in that situation.

Traffic fines are imposed for other reasons than a violation of the driving "contract" (someone who gets a parking ticket, or doesn't pay his vehicle registration, isn't being dinged because he is an unsafe driver).

It's true that it is illegal to violate ANY court order. However, civil and criminal courts treat such violations very differently.

The 45 bucks is obviously punitive rather than compensatory, and there has been considerable controversy over whether such penalties are, in fact, lawful. It would seem that if the two parties have equal standing under the law, that you should also be able to penalize the credit card company for violating parts of the contract, whether stated or implied (like if they keep you on hold for an hour, you could justifiably reduce your payment by $20).

In any case, I'm not really debating the applicability of existing law--I'm saying that the creation of this shadow world between the civil and criminal was wrong in the first place.

Quote: mkl654321

That was a truly assholy thing for the judge to say. He was trying to convert the verdict from "not guilty" to "case not proved" (which is a valid ruling in Britain, but not here). I suspect that he was subtly trying to discourage anyone else from being as uppity as you had been.

A valid result in Scotland, but not under English, Welsh and Ulster law. Unproven allows a case to be retried at a later date.

Quote: mkl654321

In the real world, a court judgment may exist, but collection is up to the successful plaintiff. Yes, someone who does not pay a court-ordered judgment is technically in violation of a court order, but they don't send the gendarmes after someone in that situation.

If the defendant is "judgment proof", yes, that is the case. If the funds are available, and he just does not want to pay, he'll end up in jail.
Note also, that "in the real world" nobody gets arrested for unpaid traffic tickets as well.

Quote:

Traffic fines are imposed for other reasons than a violation of the driving "contract" (someone who gets a parking ticket, or doesn't pay his vehicle registration, isn't being dinged because he is an unsafe driver).

I don't understand what this means. What "other reason"? "Dinged because he is an unsafe driver" is irrelevant, it is up to your (perfectly private) insurance company. It is not a fine, and that money does not go to the state. Insurance companies have determined that people who get a lot of traffic tickets are greater risk, so they charge you extra. It's their right, and they don't have to prove anything to anyone.

Quote:

It's true that it is illegal to violate ANY court order. However, civil and criminal courts treat such violations very differently.

Exactly. So, now you should see that traffic violation isn't criminal.

Quote:

The 45 bucks is obviously punitive rather than compensatory, and there has been considerable controversy over whether such penalties are, in fact, lawful.

Of course, they are lawful. You sign the contract, and agree to the charges.
The controversy you are referring to was not about whether they are lawful, but in the liberal tradition, whether they are "fair".

Quote:

It would seem that if the two parties have equal standing under the law, that you should also be able to penalize the credit card company for violating parts of the contract, whether stated or implied (like if they keep you on hold for an hour, you could justifiably reduce your payment by $20).

Absolutely. You can write up a contract with a clause, stating that, and as soon as you find a bank that'll sign it, you have a deal.

Quote:

In any case, I'm not really debating the applicability of existing law--I'm saying that the creation of this shadow world between the civil and criminal was wrong in the first place.

Right. And what I am saying, is that there is no "shadow world in between", you are barking up the wrong tree.

Quote: weaselman

Of course, they are lawful. You sign the contract, and agree to the charges.
The controversy you are referring to was not about whether they are lawful, but in the liberal tradition, whether they are "fair".

It's pointless to paint this as a liberal vs. conservative issue.

As a matter of fact, contracts, or provisions within them, are rendered null and void every day of every week because they were unfair, even if both parties DID sign them. There is a mountain of case law supporting this.

As I've said, you and I have dramatically different views about the extent of the rights of US citizens.

Quote: mkl654321

It's pointless to paint this as a liberal vs. conservative issue.

It's not. In fact, I think it's not an issue at all, liberal or conservative. If you don't like paying the fee, you have two choices - either do not use credit cards or pay your bills on time. There is nothing "fair" or "unfair" about it. It's a simple question of personal choice.
What I called "liberal" about this is the notion of entitlement - somehow it is painted to be "fair" that the bank must provide its services to you in whichever way YOU like and at whatever price YOU find right when in fact it is the other way around - they do whatever they want, and you are free to take your business elsewhere if you are unhappy. THIS is fair.

Quote: weaselman

It's not. In fact, I think it's not an issue at all, liberal or conservative. If you don't like paying the fee, you have two choices - either do not use credit cards or pay your bills on time. There is nothing "fair" or "unfair" about it. It's a simple question of personal choice.
What I called "liberal" about this is the notion of entitlement - somehow it is painted to be "fair" that the bank must provide its services to you in whichever way YOU like and at whatever price YOU find right when in fact it is the other way around - they do whatever they want, and you are free to take your business elsewhere if you are unhappy. THIS is fair.

That's a gross distortion of what I was saying. There is a simple dynamic in an individual vs. large company business relationship, called "asymmetry of information". In such relationships, one party has much more power and leverage than the other. Recognizing this imbalance doesn't equate to granting an "entitlement".

In any case, American case law has recognized that there are such things as "unfair" clauses in contracts, so it doesn't much matter if you hate that. "Take it or leave it" may be the attitude of big business, but that doesn't mean it's completely valid. When banks charge 21% interest and pay 1.5%, that's simply unfair. When they hit you with a $50 charge for overdrawing your account, that's unfair. When they charge $20 to process a check, and that check costs $0.0003 to process, that's unfair. And we, the unwashed masses, should have more choices than "bend over and take it" or "fuck off, consumer worm".

Quote: mkl654321

That's a gross distortion of what I was saying. There is a simple dynamic in an individual vs. large company business relationship, called "asymmetry of information". In such relationships, one party has much more power and leverage than the other. Recognizing this imbalance doesn't equate to granting an "entitlement".

What exactly is the information you are missing when applying for a credit card?

The reason a bank has "power" over you in this deal is because it has something you want. You are not entitled to have it, it's not your right. You either agree to their terms, and get what you want, or you tell them to get lost, and live without it.
It does not matter that the bank is a "big corporation", and you are not. If I had something you wanted, I would have power over you. The amount of power I'd have would only depend on how badly you want that thing from me, and have nothing to do with how big I am or whether I am a corporation.

Quote:

In any case, American case law has recognized that there are such things as "unfair" clauses in contracts, so it doesn't much matter if you hate that.

Can you provide a specific reference?

Quote: weaselman

What exactly is the information you are missing when applying for a credit card?

The reason a bank has "power" over you in this deal is because it has something you want. You are not entitled to have it, it's not your right. You either agree to their terms, and get what you want, or you tell them to get lost, and live without it.
It does not matter that the bank is a "big corporation", and you are not. If I had something you wanted, I would have power over you. The amount of power I'd have would only depend on how badly you want that thing from me, and have nothing to do with how big I am or whether I am a corporation.

Can you provide a specific reference?

A specific court case? I probably could, but why waste my time---it's a basic legal concept, encoded in the U.C.C. as well as tens of thousands of examples of case law, so it shouldn't be too hard for you to find.

I realize that the conservative view of business realtionships says "caveat emptor". I also realize that the concept of fairness in business relationships is anathema to many such persons. Buy a Chrysler K-car that falls apart after six months? Too bad! Take out a mortgage that is preloaded with clauses and conditions that ensure that you'll be paying an effective interest rate of fourteen percent in three years? Too bad! Yessir, it's a dog-eat-dog world out there, and anyone who feels that they've been had should just leave the building, and don't let the door hit them in the butt on the way out.

The information you are missing, by the way, is the information that would be available if the credit card agreements were written in English, as well as the information that the credit card companies can and do change the agreements at will, and you also don't get told the horrible consequences awaiting you if you are five minutes late with your payment. Example: I kept sending my payments to the "processing center", the address of which was on my statement. Well, they moved their processing center to South Dakota, without informing me. They continued to tell me to send my payments to California. What they DIDN'T tell me was that they forwarded those payments to South Dakota, and that created a delay of NINE BUSINESS DAYS (???????). Voila! Late payment. $35 charge. Hit to my credit score. Say anything you like, but I was NOT to blame here. What could I do about it, though? Zippo!

Quote: mkl654321

A specific court case? I probably could, but why waste my time

Well, I don't know why you are wasting your time, don't ask me ...
You made a statement about the US case law, that I find hard to believe. The reason for that must be that either (1) you are lying, and don't have any specific knowledge in the matter, (2) you really think you know of a case speaking to your point, but are mistaken interpreting it or (3) I am mistaken, and there really is a case like that.

To pick one of the three possibilities above, I would need to see the case you are talking about. If you can't or don't want to provide one, I'll just have to use my own judgment, based on my (admittedly limited) familiarity with your personality and level of knowledge in the matter, and pick #1 from my list of options.

Quote:

The information you are missing, by the way, is the information that would be available if the credit card agreements were written in English,

My question was what is the specific information you are missing, not in what case it would be available.

Quote:

as well as the information that the credit card companies can and do change the agreements at will

Wrong. I am not missing this information. I have it, and evidently so do you.

Quote:

, and you also don't get told the horrible consequences awaiting you if you are five minutes late with your payment.

Yes, you do. It is in the contract you sign when you apply for the card.

Quote:

Example: I kept sending my payments to the "processing center", the address of which was on my statement. Well, they moved their processing center to South Dakota, without informing me. They continued to tell me to send my payments to California. What they DIDN'T tell me was that they forwarded those payments to South Dakota, and that created a delay of NINE BUSINESS DAYS (???????). Voila! Late payment. $35 charge. Hit to my credit score. Say anything you like, but I was NOT to blame here. What could I do about it, though? Zippo!

Yes, if your facts are right, I agree that you are not to blame in this case. What you can do? Call support. If you are not routinely late with your payments, and are in general customer in good standing, they will refund your late fee. I got mine refunded several times when I simply forgot to send the payment in time, in your case, it is definitely their fault the payment was late, so it should not be a problem to get the fee refunded. If they refuse, you can sue them in small claims, and win (provided again, that your facts are correct, that you were not informed of the address change, that it caused a delay that long, and that if not for that delay, your payment would have arrived in time).

And no, your credit score did not take any hit because of this (and something tells me you actually know that).

Quote: weaselman

Well, I don't know why you are wasting your time, don't ask me ...
You made a statement about the US case law, that I find hard to believe. The reason for that must be that either (1) you are lying, and don't have any specific knowledge in the matter, (2) you really think you know of a case speaking to your point, but are mistaken interpreting it or (3) I am mistaken, and there really is a case like that.

To pick one of the three possibilities above, I would need to see the case you are talking about. If you can't or don't want to provide one, I'll just have to use my own judgment, based on my (admittedly limited) knowledge of your personality and level of knowledge, and pick #1 from my list of options.

That's because there isn't a doctrine that says that "unfair" clauses in contracts are unenforceable. There is something called unconscionability which is a similar concept. The standard for finding unconscionability is very high, however. If you think you got cheated, or the price was too high, it usually won't be enough. It has to be really bad stuff. This is the major case on the subject.

Quote: teddys

That's because there isn't a doctrine that says that "unfair" clauses in contracts are unenforceable. There is something called unconscionability which is a similar concept. The standard for finding unconscionability is very high, however. If you think you got cheated, or the price was too high, it usually won't be enough. It has to be really bad stuff. This is the major case on the subject.

Yeah, I know about that one (and I suspected it might be what mkl had in mind as well), but, like you said, it's not quite (if at all) what we are talking about here for the reasons you stated.

Quote: weaselman

And no, your credit score did not take any hit because of this (and something tells me you actually know that).

Actually, I DID complain, and after about fifteen weeks, I DID get the late fee refunded, but my credit score DID drop from 685 to 619, which was one point below the threshold for getting a decent mortgage, so that wound up costing me several thousand dollars. I tried for YEARS to get that fixed, but all I got (from both the credit agencies and the credit card company) was, "Well, you were, in fact, late with your payment." The company's position was that I was late, and the reason they refunded the payment was not because they were at fault (for not telling me to send the payment directly to their processing office), but rather, as a "courtesy".

Obviously, the consequences of a late (or, a "late") payment extend far beyond the relatively nominal late fee. An asshole bank or credit card company shouldn't be able to ruin your life because they screw up their own payment processing procedure. Yeah, I could sue them. I could also try to wrestle a gorilla. (Which is why that business relationship is fundamentally asymmetric.)

Quote: weaselman

Quote: teddys

That's because there isn't a doctrine that says that "unfair" clauses in contracts are unenforceable. There is something called unconscionability which is a similar concept. The standard for finding unconscionability is very high, however. If you think you got cheated, or the price was too high, it usually won't be enough. It has to be really bad stuff. This is the major case on the subject.

Yeah, I know about that one (and I suspected it might be what mkl had in mind as well), but, like you said, it's not quite (if at all) what we are talking about here for the reasons you stated.

That isn't the specific case I remember, but as I said, it's very common in contract law, and in tort cases. The two university classes on Business Law and Contracts that I took were about thirty years ago, so I don't recall the specific cases that were used as illustrations at that time.

Quote: mkl654321

Yeah, I could sue them. I could also try to wrestle a gorilla. (Which is why that business relationship is fundamentally asymmetric.)

Actually, no. Once again, provided that all the facts you are stating are correct (which I personally find hard to believe), it sounds like your credit card company was in violation of FCRA (believe it or not, it actually has the word "fair" in its name :)), and you'd have a very good chance to win some serious money if you sued them.
This kind of decisions is very heavily biased towards protecting consumer's interests.

Quote: weaselman

Actually, no. Once again, provided that all the facts you are stating are correct (which I personally find hard to believe), it sounds like your credit card company was in violation of FCRA (believe it or not, it actually has the word "fair" in its name :)), and you'd have a very good chance to win some serious money if you sued them.
This kind of decisions is very heavily biased towards protecting consumer's interests.

Perhaps, but I'd be laying extremely heavy odds: I wouldn't recover any compensatory damages, just my attorney fees+court costs+the original amount (which I recovered anyway), so if I won, I'd be ahead $35, but if I lost, I'd be out a couple thousand.

And the fact that you find my narrative "hard to believe" tells me that you have a very rosy view of the Bambi vs. Godzilla relationship. My jaundiced view comes from long and bitter experience, both as a customer and a merchant. Because I was unimportant, I was treated like shit, and constantly hit with fees and surcharges and rate hikes and other nonsense.

The company in question, by the way, was Capital One, which had, at the time, a deservedly horrible reputation.

Quote: mkl654321

Perhaps, but I'd be laying extremely heavy odds: I wouldn't recover any compensatory damages, just my attorney fees+court costs+the original amount (which I recovered anyway), so if I won, I'd be ahead $35, but if I lost, I'd be out a couple thousand.

No, your damages would include the money you lost because of not being able to secure the loan. Additionally, there is a statutory amount of punitive damages awarded for FCRA violations. I don't remember the number, but the ballpark is several thousand per violation. Oh, and you would not need a lawyer for this,you could just sue them yourself. It is easier than VP.

Quote:

And the fact that you find my narrative "hard to believe" tells me that you have a very rosy view of the Bambi vs. Godzilla relationship.

It has nothing to do with my views. I just have some experience with Fair Isaac algorithms, and it gives me some idea of what does and does not affect credit scores, and how much. I also know something about the ways lending decisions are made, and based on that, I cannot say that what you are describing is plain impossible, but I do believe, that it is very improbable.

Quote:

My jaundiced view comes from long and bitter experience, both as a customer and a merchant. Because I was unimportant, I was treated like shit, and constantly hit with fees and surcharges and rate hikes and other nonsense.

I think, your biggest problem is your self esteem. If you believe you are unimportant, you will be treated as such, and no law in the world will be able to change that.

Quote:

The company in question, by the way, was Capital One, which had, at the time, a deservedly horrible reputation.

Well, you must have had your reasons to decide to deal with them despite the reputation. That I can understand. What I don't get is looking for fault elsewhere when a shady deal does not work out your satisfaction.

Quote: weaselman

No, your damages would include the money you lost because of not being able to secure the loan. Additionally, there is a statutory amount of punitive damages awarded for FCRA violations. I don't remember the number, but the ballpark is several thousand per violation. Oh, and you would not need a lawyer for this,you could just sue them yourself. It is easier than VP.

It has nothing to do with my views. I just have some experience with Fair Isaac algorithms, and it gives me some idea of what does and does not affect credit scores, and how much. I also know something about the ways lending decisions are made, and based on that, I cannot say that what you are describing is plain impossible, but I do believe, that it is very improbable.

I think, your biggest problem is your self esteem. If you believe you are unimportant, you will be treated as such, and no law in the world will be able to change that.

Well, you must have had your reasons to decide to deal with them despite the reputation. That I can understand. What I don't get is looking for fault elsewhere when a shady deal does not work out your satisfaction.

I doubt that I could have claimed HYPOTHETICAL damages, such as the extra money that I had to spend when I COULD HAVE gotten a better loan, if not for the damage to my credit score. The burden of proof would have been on me and my time machine.

I actually don't know what arcane incantations and eye-of-newt potions affect credit scores, only that mine dropped when I made that "late" payment. Certainly, something else could have caused that drop, such as weather patterns in Peru or how the High Priests of Credit Scores interpreted that year's goat droppings, but I can't pinpoint anything that I did, other than that late payment.

What I meant--and I doubt very much that I actually have to point this out to you--was that I was DEEMED unimportant.

I severed my relationship with that company as soon as I determined that I would be unable to get them to change their "late payment" report, as well as their hiking my merchant account rate from 3% to 4.5% for no particular reason. I since have dealt with Wells Fargo, which I have found to be an excellent bank that does NOT treat its customers the way a dog treats a fire hydrant.

Quote: mkl654321

I doubt that I could have claimed HYPOTHETICAL damages, such as the extra money that I had to spend when I COULD HAVE gotten a better loan, if not for the damage to my credit score. The burden of proof would have been on me and my time machine.

No time machine is necessary. Your loan application and the bank's response should be sufficient.
You might indeed have hard time proving that the drop in the score was caused by your late payment (because, like I said before, it seems highly improbable), however, if you have documented the timeline, and can show the score before and after the report (or, you can subpoena the credit bureau to provide that information), it should be enough to make your point.

Quote:

What I meant--and I doubt very much that I actually have to point this out to you--was that I was DEEMED unimportant.

All I am saying is that people that believe they are unimportant often get deemed unimportant when dealing with other parties.
Or, maybe, it is just a psychological effect. For example, when something doesn't go my way, I assume it is because I screwed up, and did something wrong, not because some evil corporation deemed me unimportant and is out to get me, that is, I still think they know I am important, I just failed to do something right, and am facing the consequences.