question about debt
Don
owe that same company $600 for an item I purchased, is it within my rights
to simply pay them $100 and then walk away? Would the answer be any
different if the debts involved myself and a next door neighbor instead of a
company?
Thanks,
Don
Gary Walker
Paul Cassel
No. Such an action is 'self help' which isn't permitted. The two
transactions aren't linked so neither are the legal cases underlying.
OTOH, if you did such a thing, probably (depending on circumstances) the
other party's remedy would be taking you to court where, if you were
right to begin with, you should end up the same.
I'd recommend mediating these disputes to see if you can resolve them to
both party's satisfaction.
-paul
ianal
Timothy
You're asking for trouble. The company for whatever reason thinks your
work is not worth $500. They think it isn't worth anything. If you
give them $100 cash while keeping the item, they are still out $500.
(I am ignoring the fact that the wholesale price is less than the
retial price, the the resale value of the used item is most likely
lower than the price you paid for it, that you may in fact not have
bought the item from the same corporate entity you bought it from,
etc., etc.) You can suggest the barter plus cash deal as a compromise,
but I think their counteroffer will be this: you pay them $600, not
$100, while walking away with the item. Another offer might be: you
give them item back and they don't pay you for your work.
Dan Lanciani
In article <bq06k11ab1sujnb5e...@4ax.com>,
pcasse...@comcast.net (Paul Cassel) writes:
| Don wrote:
| > If a company owes me $500 for work I performed and refuses to pay me, and I
| > owe that same company $600 for an item I purchased, is it within my rights
| > to simply pay them $100 and then walk away? Would the answer be any
| > different if the debts involved myself and a next door neighbor instead of a
| > company?
| >
|
| No. Such an action is 'self help' which isn't permitted. The two
| transactions aren't linked so neither are the legal cases underlying.
An interesting question might be: could the original poster have structured
his contract for the original work such that he did have that option?
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Stuart A. Bronstein
> Don wrote:
>> If a company owes me $500 for work I performed and refuses to
>> pay me, and I owe that same company $600 for an item I
>> purchased, is it within my rights to simply pay them $100 and
>> then walk away? Would the answer be any different if the debts
>> involved myself and a next door neighbor instead of a company?
>
> No. Such an action is 'self help' which isn't permitted.
Self help occurs when someone takes it upon himself to collect money
owed to him by, in effect, stealing property from someone else.
That's not what happened here. The OP said he bought something and
still owes for it.
There is a legal proposition called "offset" which allows two cross
debts to be cancelled out as the OP proposes. It is legally a very
accepted thing to do.
> The two transactions aren't linked so neither are the legal cases
> underlying.
That makes no difference as to whether an offset is available.
Stu
Don
news:bq06k11ab1sujnb5e...@4ax.com...
> No. Such an action is 'self help' which isn't permitted. The two
> transactions aren't linked so neither are the legal cases underlying.
> OTOH, if you did such a thing, probably (depending on circumstances) the
> other party's remedy would be taking you to court where, if you were
> right to begin with, you should end up the same.
Thanks to both of you for those answers. I suspected that the two cases
would be separate, so that mixing them and seeking "self help" would not be
allowed. Now I would like to ask a related question that reverses the
situation. Suppose I work for a company and I will soon receive my monthly
salary check of $2000. Earlier in the month I bought a defective product
from the same company for $1000 and then refused to pay for it. When my
salary check arrives, it is for $1000. The company says that I owe them
$1000, so they have deducted that amount from my salary. On the basis of
your answers to my earlier question, I presume that the company is out of
line: The two cases cannot be mixed, and self-help by the company is not
allowed. Is that true? Am I missing anything?
John Knight
> In article <bq06k11ab1sujnb5e...@4ax.com>,
> pcasse...@comcast.net (Paul Cassel) writes:
> | Don wrote:
> | > If a company owes me $500 for work I performed and refuses to pay me, and I
> | > owe that same company $600 for an item I purchased, is it within my rights
> | > to simply pay them $100 and then walk away? Would the answer be any
> | > different if the debts involved myself and a next door neighbor instead of a
> | > company?
> | >
at least one potential significant difference: the actions of the
company (and you) may fall within mandatory provisions in your state
pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code. These radically alter the rules
of the game, and if so, makes the situation different from that of you
and your neighbor. However, the applicability of those laws and how that
body of law is applied depends on how your interactions with that
company are construed. Question is, Are you a company or a consumer in
this context? And/or consumer protection issues may arise, and/or
issues of partnership may arise, and/or issues from employment may
arise, and/or issues from a pattern of previous interactions may
arise.... Not enough info to narrow it down.
> |
> | No. Such an action is 'self help' which isn't permitted. The two
> | transactions aren't linked so neither are the legal cases underlying.
>
> An interesting question might be: could the original poster have structured
> his contract for the original work such that he did have that option?
>
> Dan Lanciani
> ddl@danlan.*com
>
precisely, you might be able to create such a contract, but it wouldn't
solve the problem the hypo is based on. One way to view the problem is
that each party reaches materially different conclusions based on the
facts. The facts and conclusions are in dispute, and would be in
dispute even if you had such a contract, all other things being equal.
So, you're back where you started - two parties disagreeing. They still
have to go to court and have it decide what the facts and conclusions
are based on those facts (in the context of applicable law).
The ultimate problem is likely the lack of a clearly specified
expectations and consequences both parties agree to and understand -
which of course is usually embodied in a "contract" or series of
"contracts" of some form.
That's my take.
Stuart A. Bronstein
> Thanks to both of you for those answers. I suspected that the
> two cases would be separate, so that mixing them and seeking
> "self help" would not be allowed. Now I would like to ask a
> related question that reverses the situation. Suppose I work for
> a company and I will soon receive my monthly salary check of
> $2000. Earlier in the month I bought a defective product from
> the same company for $1000 and then refused to pay for it. When
> my salary check arrives, it is for $1000. The company says that
> I owe them $1000, so they have deducted that amount from my
> salary. On the basis of your answers to my earlier question, I
> presume that the company is out of line: The two cases cannot be
> mixed, and self-help by the company is not allowed. Is that
> true? Am I missing anything?
It might depend on which state you're in. In California it is
pretty much prohibited to deduct things like this from an
employee's pay check, even if it is a legitimate debt.
Stu
Dan Lanciani
In article <p5dik1hhl7pk3fg55...@4ax.com>, jkni...@qwest.net
(John Knight) writes:
| Dan Lanciani wrote:
[...]
| > An interesting question might be: could the original poster have structured
| > his contract for the original work such that he did have that option?
| I think Dan Lanciani's question is curious. I would think, no.
Can a bank structure its account agreement such that it can appropriate a
customer's deposits in satisfaction of otherwise unrelated debts that the
bank believes are owed to it by the customer?
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Timothy
>It might depend on which state you're in. In California it is
>pretty much prohibited to deduct things like this from an
>employee's pay check, even if it is a legitimate debt.
It is pretty much universal, however, that employers are NOT allowed to
make involuntary deductions from a worker's pay check (aside from tax
withholding, union dues, and other routine mandatory deductions, which
are somewhat voluntary since the worker is always free to quit his
job)--- unless a creditor gets a court order to have the pay check
garnished. (And even when there is a garnishment, it is normally part
of a settlement which the woirker has agreed to.
An even more universal principle is that employers are not allowed to
unilaterally reduce the pay rate for work already done (although they
can opt not to give expected bonuses.)
So in this hypothetical case, it is highly unlikely that the company
could get away with taking the $1000 off the pay check. (For that
matter, it is not all that likely that they would in fact choose to
sell an item, defective or not, without making payment arrangements
first. Also, it is not very likely that they would choose to stick an
employee with a defective item without finding a way to either refund
the sales price or replace the defective item with a good one.)
Rich Carreiro
> Can a bank structure its account agreement such that it can appropriate a
> customer's deposits in satisfaction of otherwise unrelated debts that the
> bank believes are owed to it by the customer?
I think it's pretty clear they can. Read your bank account agreement.
Look for the term "offset" or "right of offset" in it. The bank is
giving itself the right to use funds you have on deposit with it to
pay off debts you owe to it.
Maybe it's excessive paranoia on their part, but I know people who
will not keep deposit accounts at banks where they have credit
cards/loans/etc. for just this reason.
--
Rich Carreiro rlc...@animato.arlington.ma.us
Dan Lanciani
In article <dj36l1pf9uljq9qsn...@4ax.com>,
rlc...@animato.arlington.ma.us (Rich Carreiro) writes:
| ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) writes:
|
| > Can a bank structure its account agreement such that it can appropriate a
| > customer's deposits in satisfaction of otherwise unrelated debts that the
| > bank believes are owed to it by the customer?
|
| I think it's pretty clear they can.
What is the critical difference in the circumstances of my two hypotheticals
that allows offsets for the bank but precludes it for the original poster?
| Read your bank account agreement.
I have read all my banking agreements.
| Look for the term "offset" or "right of offset" in it. The bank is
| giving itself the right to use funds you have on deposit with it to
| pay off debts you owe to it.
I'm well aware that banks claim to give themselves such rights of offset.
That's why I posed the question. What I would like to understand is why
it is fairly clear that banks can give themselves such rights by contract
while others cannot. Is it a matter of the specific types of offset or of
the standings of the parties or what?
| Maybe it's excessive paranoia on their part, but I know people who
| will not keep deposit accounts at banks where they have credit
| cards/loans/etc. for just this reason.
I am such a person.
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Stuart A. Bronstein
> rlc...@animato.arlington.ma.us (Rich Carreiro) writes:
>| Look for the term "offset" or "right of offset" in it. The
>| bank is giving itself the right to use funds you have on
>| deposit with it to pay off debts you owe to it.
>
> I'm well aware that banks claim to give themselves such rights
> of offset. That's why I posed the question. What I would like
> to understand is why it is fairly clear that banks can give
> themselves such rights by contract while others cannot. Is it a
> matter of the specific types of offset or of the standings of
> the parties or what?
I don't know about anywhere else, but the right to offset, even
without a contract allowing it, is well established in California
law. I'd be surprised if the rule were different elsewhere.
>| Maybe it's excessive paranoia on their part, but I know people
>| who will not keep deposit accounts at banks where they have
>| credit cards/loans/etc. for just this reason.
>
> I am such a person.
With good reason.
Stu
Seth Breidbart
Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.*com> wrote:
> What I would like to understand is why
>it is fairly clear that banks can give themselves such rights by contract
>while others cannot. Is it a matter of the specific types of offset or of
>the standings of the parties or what?
It's because the section of the UCC that applies to banks can be
explained quite easily (according to a lawyer I once worked with):
"The bank wins."
Who do you think _wrote_ that section of the UCC?
Seth
--
Where is the customers' lobby?