Contract v Agreement

seeker · #1 08-30-2004, 07:10 PM

If a CRA lists an account still open, even though the CCC says that you are in default -- what do ya think using it would do? Why do they insist that the account is OPEN, when we all know they would no more allow it's use than I could jump over the moon. Is this not deceptive ?practices? or some such?

Just a thought as I am reveiwing the feeble attempts at mind games the CCC and CRAs have concocted for their own amusement!

The CCC thought is they can't close the account, b/c then they could not collect. I begin to think there may be some code or statute to that effect? Any one have an idea on that? There has got to be a reason for the OPEN status--

Seeker

Ice · #2 08-31-2004, 12:09 AM

Can the CCC provide you with a copy of the agreement?

Can they demonstrate any termination of the agreement?

If termination of the agreement cannot be demonstrated, then the account is open.

But on the other hand, if they cannot demonstrate any contractual agreement -- then there isn't an account.

ya think?

seeker · #3 08-31-2004, 09:40 AM

Ice;

Isn't it amazing what starts popping in the brain once the cobwebs clear? I was thinking about all the that -- my theory is that if they maintain an "open account" they can still claim it exists. After all, if they close it, they admit that you were right -- there is nothing there --

was on conference call last night where the guest speaker was making a distinction b/t "agreement" and "contract" -- worth a little research, I think!

As per another thread, when people start thinking and sharing, things start opening -- like eyes and minds and ears -- I am thankful for the sharing here and wish more who horde info would be so open and supportive -- and no, I am not diercting that at forum members, but the paytriots who demand such exhorbitant fees for a crap shoot, at best. TEACHING a man to fish is definitely the best, and ONLY option!

Seeker

weishaupt1776 · #4 08-31-2004, 09:57 AM

[color=black][b]Seeker, thank you, thank you, thank you for indicating the difference between an agreement and contract ! !

I was drafting a trade secret agreement until I looked it up in my trusty Black's. Since I need the law on my side in the event I get ripped, I am now drafting a trade secret contract.

Did I say thank you?

weishaupt1776 · #5 08-31-2004, 10:59 AM

[color=black][b]Also, doesn't Our Common Law & Constitution limit for the Gov's ability to interfere with CONTRACTS

seeker · #6 08-31-2004, 12:28 PM

weishaupt -- can you share your findings?

So glad that this little tidbit helped. A friend has suggested this may have ramifications regarding our fight in the CC and Bank arena -- CCC claim "agreements"

Banks claim --- what IS IT that they claim? LOL

Seeker

weishaupt1776 · #7 08-31-2004, 11:21 PM

[color=black][b]OK, I checked both my Black's Law Dictionary 4th & 6th Editions.(Note: I am being a little more explicit in consideration of newbies, since I read that there are 1700 members) Both are concurrent, in regards to the basic definitionsAlthough there are more case cites in the 4th), so don't worry Pharisees.

I will only include the glaring parts of each definition, so let these speak for themselves prima facia. (Newbies, look that one up in your Black's Law Dictionary)<blockquote>AgreementA meeting of 2 or more MINDS. . . in OPINION . . . with the VIEW of contracting an obligation. . . . used synonomously with "contract", agreement . . BROADER term . . .AN AGREEMENT MAY LACK AN ESSENTIAL PART OF A CONTRACT

Contract

. . .promises for the breach of which the LAW GIVES A REMEDY or the PERFORMANCE OF WHICH THE LAW IN SOME WAY RECOGNIZES AS A DUTY</blockqoute>

So if I was to draft up this trade secret contract as an agreement, we would have trouble trying to file a legitimate cause of action in the event of a breach, because agreements are not as legally specific in regards to delineating duty.

seeker · #8 09-01-2004, 09:37 AM

There is a grain of sand here that could become a pearl with a little aggravation -- regarding the Credit Card "AGREEMENT" -- we are always demanding to see the original -- If I am reading this correctly -- an Agreement is not held in the same regarded in court as a CONTRACT -- "..promises for the breach of which the LAW GIVES A REMEDY or the PERFORMANCE OF WHICH THE LAW IN SOME WAY RECOGNIZES AS A DUTY

SO, a Contract, gives a REMEDY, but an Agreement is less specific and perhaps the REMEDY is not stated --

From my current court paperwork -- motion to dismiss for failure to state claim on which relief can be granted --

1. Trial Rule 9.2(

requires the Plaintiff to attach the original instrument of a copy thereof to the complaint.

2. Plaintiff has failed to do so.

Because there is no original instrument or copy attached, the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

By failing to state a claim on which relief can be granted, the Plaintiff has denied jurisdiction to this court on this particular issue.

Just some random thoughts -- hopefully to inspire some more research and discussion!

Seeker

weishaupt1776 · #9 09-01-2004, 12:08 PM

Seeker, that is awesome ! I am really busy right now drafting a CONTRACT , and need time to ponder the next logical step that would follow.

I was wondering if I could draft you to possibly change the title to this thread for easier scrollability(cool word, dude-"scrollability")

Howz 'bout Agreement vs. Contract?

RICKY · #10 09-01-2004, 12:16 PM

SEEKER:

PLEASE INDULGE MY IGNORANCE TO ASK A QUESTION THAT'S BASIC FOR MY EDUCATION. AM I RIGHT IN MY EVALUATION OF YOUR PHRASE BELOW?

"...failure to state claim on which relief can be granted--".

THIS IS THE FAILURE OF THE PLAINTIFF TO "SET FORTH IN WRITING OR WORDS" (STATE) THAT THERE IS A "DEMAND FOR MONEY OR PROPERTY TO WHICH ONE ASSERTS A RIGHT" (CLAIM) THAT THE DEFENDENT CAN "GRANT DELIVERANCE FROM... INJUSTICE" (RELIEF) TO THE PLAINTIFF - BY PAYING A SUM OR WHATEVER.

IF SO, THAT MEANS THAT YOU ARE STATING IN YOUR PAPERS YOU ARE FILING THAT THEY BASICALLY DON'T HAVE ANY VALID DOCUMENT TO SHOW WHERE THEY HAVE THE RIGHT FOR RELIEF IN THE FIRST PLACE. DUH... FOR ME..!

I HAD TO GET THAT RELIEF THING DOWN IN MY OWN MIND. THREE EDITIONS OF BLACK'S AND ONE WEBSTER'S LATER I GOT IT.....I THINK...!

I PROBABLY DON'T NEED TO SEND THIS NOW BUT IT MIGHT HELP OTHERS IN UNDERSTANDING. ALSO, I COULD STILL BE WRONG IN SOME ASPECT.... SO, I WILL STILL AWAIT YOUR COMMENTS LATER TODAY.

OFF TO WORK NOW....BYE &...

THANKS,

RICKY