A Question About The Legality of Credit Bureaus

[criminal.politics]

I don't believe your right,, read my last post about the farmers... the reason i used farmers, was to erase the fact of all baking! take the bank out of it completely. do you still have a moral obligation to pay me if i lend you something of substance? YES YOU DO. and that was my other point, this has been going on way before the "codes" were ever written. although i dont agree with currency of our credit today, i am very careful not to breach that contract. i hear people all the time "oh i paid my card late and the interest is killing me" whaaa whaaa my usual reply is "did you really need to finance that 500 dollar phone? no! they did not need that 500 phone.. i run my company on a 42 dollar phone... i believe the fault lies on the super materialistic world most of you live in.. i have 2 children. my wife lets them eat food in the back, drinks get spilled on the floor, etc. I have, one of the top 10 paying jobs in the country! and i will NOT BUY A NEW CAR.. till my kids are grown up. i drive a 1500 dollar car.. till the wheels fall off. then, i do it again. my point is, you have the responsibility of taking care of your self.. that includes: Never over extending yourself, turn off your plasma TV, put down the ipod, and unplug the sony playstation. go sit outside and catch the sunrise or the sunset, its completely FREE of financial obligation.
PS remind me to never let you borrow any corn.

[phreeman2003]

The old barter way based on substance is a far cry from today's credit bureau system. So, you're probably way off base with that analogy.

I somewhat agree that one should not be duped into using easy credit and should buy only what one needs or can afford, however, in the present system were the general public aware of public policy of HR 192 no one would ever be late because they would tender payment via the exact same species of money they were lent; their own credit. And, that is the system the bureaus work in attempting to intimidate people into continuing the double or more enrichment the alleged credit providers take for granted.

Show me where anything of substance ever changes hands in this debt system.

[protrust]

Not quite Intel, they (bureaus) are not violating your privacy since the info they have on you is actually owned by the creditors...not you...and the creditors agree by subscription to report your activity. We give tacit agreement when we "apply" for credit of any kind that reports to the bureaus.

"All law is contract and voluntary in nature." Robert Fox

[TheIntelCritic]

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.