Lawsuit on paid debt

[BigMouthWino]

In mid April I received a letter from the suppliers attorney basically stating that they cannot wait that long and unless I pay the balance owed by 06/01/2012, they will file suit.

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[ecmst12]

That is not an agreement or a contract. That's a demand IN VIOLATION of their contract.

 

[justalayman]

Seems pretty clear to me.

for some reason that doesn't surprise me.

ecmst12 explained it to you perfectly.

 

[BigMouthWino]

That is not an agreement or a contract. That's a demand IN VIOLATION of their contract.

Wrong. You are assuming there was some offer and acceptance giving him the right to make these monthly payments. Number one problem here is there was no additional consideration for these terms. They had the right to demand the full balance due for their goods and services at any time. When an invoice says Net 30 it means Net 30. Just because you start making partial payments doesn't mean the vendor has to accept your terms forever.

 

[justalayman]

BigMouthWino;3064927]Wrong. You are assuming there was some offer and acceptance giving him the right to make these monthly payments. N

really? So, the e-mail op has attesting to the agreement means nothing? and the ratification by action for a full year means nothing?

Just because you start making partial payments doesn't mean the vendor has to accept your terms forever.

but when they agree to it, it does become enforceable.

while I will agree that a contract, specifically, was not entered into, promissory estoppel doesn't care.

 

[BigMouthWino]

while I will agree that a contract, specifically, was not entered into, promissory estoppel doesn't care.

Wrong. Promissory Estoppel also requires consideration be provided. There was no additional consideration here. The full amount was due and payable immediately. Now had he agreed to pay an extra $500 in exchange for the monthly payments I would agree with you, but that was never the case. No consideration, no contract, no promissory estoppel.

 

[tranquility]

I supplied the consideration earlier. The OP disclosed he was asking for a client. There would be a legal defense that the OP was the agent of the principal who the contract was with. The consideration is the waiver to make that claim.

 

[justalayman]

Wrong. Promissory Estoppel also requires consideration be provided. There was no additional consideration here. The full amount was due and payable immediately. Now had he agreed to pay an extra $500 in exchange for the monthly payments I would agree with you, but that was never the case. No consideration, no contract, no promissory estoppel.

no, it doesn't.

PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL

Overview
Resources
The doctrine allowing recovery on a promise made without consideration when the reliance on the promise was reasonable, and the promisee relied to his or her detriment. See e.g. Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. 501 US 663 (1991).

DEFINITION FROM NOLO’S PLAIN-ENGLISH LAW DICTIONARY

A legal principle that prevents a person who made a promise from reneging when someone else has reasonably relied on the promise and will suffer a loss if the promise is broken.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Wrong. Promissory Estoppel also requires consideration be provided.

Another make-it-up-as-you-go answer.

Ladies and Gentlemen, it appears what we have here is a first class troll. She is very effective at getting people to respond.

I suggest that in the future the senior members don't bother arguing with her, as that is exactly what she wants. Simply warn the OP that she has been known to provide incorrect advice and move on.

 

[Ohiogal]

Another make-it-up-as-you-go answer.

Ladies and Gentlemen, it appears what we have here is a first class troll. She is very effective at getting people to respond.

I suggest that in the future the senior members don't bother arguing with her, as that is exactly what she wants. Simply warn the OP that she has been known to provide incorrect advice and move on.

BMW is a female? Hmmmm...

 

[BigMouthWino]

BMW is a female? Hmmmm...

Not the last time I checked LOL.

 

[BigMouthWino]

A legal principle that prevents a person who made a promise from reneging when someone else has reasonably relied on the promise and will suffer a loss if the promise is broken.

There is no 3rd party reliance here. Only the creditor and the debtor it doesn't apply. This is a credit CONTRACT, based upon consideration. There is no promissory estoppel argument.

 

[justalayman]

sure, ok, whatever you want to claim. I's fine by me.

 

[BigMouthWino]

sure, ok, whatever you want to claim. I's fine by me.

Good I'm glad we were finally able to settle this.

 

[justalayman]

Good I'm glad we were finally able to settle this.

gotcha. you run with it bucky.