Edwynn
Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Well, seems the woman filed her own suit against Capital One on Dec 13th. http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20101213/bs_prweb/prweb4888464_1 Not sure if she is entitled to the amount she is suing for, but it does sound like she has a good case. Indeed she does. In answer to some of your earlier questions; yes, Capital One's failure to appear meant they effectively dropped the case, and Ms. Perry's suit followed. On reading the first few reports on the case one question that came to me concerned the issue of C. One's continuing to contact Ms. Perry and others after the lawyer instructed all further communication to be with his office. I thought, "well, just because a lawyer says so, does that mean they have to follow?" As it turns out this is indeed the case. PA and most other states have such a law that says once a lawyer formally represents a person and instructs all communication to be directed to the attorney the other party must adhere to this provision. So then aside from all the other grounds for action mentioned in your recently cited article, every contact with someone other than her attorney after the initial letter is a violation of that law. Elsewhere in this thread, I don't know how someone has come to the conclusion that Ms. Perry "stole" money or services in the absence of any ruling or conviction of such. The amount claimed as owed by C. One was disputed by Ms. Perry, an everyday occurrence in the credit card world. After two attempts to rectify the situation directly without success, she handed the matter over to her lawyer, whereupon C. One retaliated with a string of extra-legal means. If Ms. Perry is awarded a judgment, I'm sure the amount will be much lower than what is being sought, but any ruling against Capital One here would provide a rare case where corporate stupidity is actually punished- by the law, by the board of directors, by shareholders, anybody.
< Message edited by Edwynn -- 12/14/2010 12:15:34 PM >
|