|
Protrust:
I hear what you're saying and it makes a whole lot of sense. But I would like you to ponder this as well as the rest of the esteemed members of this informative board:
Credit applications, in general are contracts of adhesion. Basically, we either accept or reject whatever it is the creditors are offering.
Because of the "take it or leave it" condition of the contract of adhesion, the consumer entering into the contract with the creditor is not on equal terms with the creditor. The consumer really has no bargaining or negotiating position. The situation is "unfair" or "unconscionable" from the start.
Technically speaking, technically... a contract, such as a consumer credit contract in my opinion, can be hypothetically voided due to duress and/or undue influence by the creditor with the bargaining position.
Therefore with the aforementioned in mind, if our contract with the creditor is void, the consumer in turn, never agreed to anything, and thus, the creditor has no right to report you to the bureaus because you never agreed to be reported to the bureaus.
Additionally, for any consumer credit contract to be valid, there must be consideration. What is the definition of consideration in the consumer credit transaction?
The consumer is given credit by the Creditor with which the consumer can purchase goods and services...
What does the consumer give to the Creditor? There's no tangible collateral involved with a credit card application. So the consumer gets something, but what does the creditor get? A promise by the consumer to pay? That's not consideration, and if there's no consideration, there's no contract, and if there's no contract, you can't be reported to the bureaus.
Does this theory sound legit or have I gone too far? Let me know my friends.
|