• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Newspaper delivery

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

jprauseo

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
Massachusetts

My subscription to the newspaper ran out. My carrier continued to deliver the paper for over a year. I had no idea that the subscription had ended. She is taken me to small claims court to settle this. Should I have to pay her? I never had a contract with her; I always dealt directly with the newspaper. In the past, when my subscription was up the paper stopped coming and it was up to me to re-order it. That was not the case here, she just continued to bring the paperWhat is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
 


Mass_Shyster

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
Massachusetts

My subscription to the newspaper ran out. My carrier continued to deliver the paper for over a year. I had no idea that the subscription had ended. She is taken me to small claims court to settle this. Should I have to pay her? I never had a contract with her; I always dealt directly with the newspaper. In the past, when my subscription was up the paper stopped coming and it was up to me to re-order it. That was not the case here, she just continued to bring the paperWhat is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
You did not know that the subscription had ended, so you continued to enjoy the benefits of receiving the paper. On the other hand, she is out not only her profit on the paper, but her cost of the paper.

Under the theory of Quantum Meruit, you owe her the money for the paper.
 

Antigone*

Senior Member
YES. You got the paper and you read the paper. Pay up or go to court and be humiliated. Your choice.
Seeing as the poster has not yet gotten snippy with anyone on this forum, your humiliation comment is not necessary. Just give me one more reason to report you to the moderator. Believe me, it is all too easy.

Jprauseo, please accept my apologies on behalf of this ignorant troll. Yes you do rightly owe the money.
 

dlw99

Member
Not everyone needs this forum to feel purpose in life, as you apparently do, Anti. Report away.

Poster, if you have a conscience, you will be humiliated in court. I'm trying to save you the trip. You admit you received the paper and did not pay for it. Why do you think it should be free? Do you think the carrier makes a lot of money delivering newspapers?

Why not just pay the bill and cancel the paper if you don't want it anymore?
 

justalayman

Senior Member
there are a couple problems here and the paper delivery person may be suing the wrong party.


OP, do you pay the delivery person or directly to the newspaper subscription services? Does the delivery person ever make collections or provide billing?



Depending on the situation, OP may or may not owe the money but to whom they owe money to is more important.


If the delivery person was in charge for their own collections, delivery person has as much fault here as OP. Delivery person had the opportunity and right to terminate delivery at any time yet continued to deliver the paper. When OP did not make payment, delivery should have stopped. It didn't and apparently OP was not made aware of the lack of payment.

an equitable solution under those circumstances would be to take a rolled up newspaper and whack the delivery guy and tell him to get smarter and he/she is SOL.

I understand the quantum meruit argument BUT just the same, OP may not owe to the delivery person if the delivery person does not bill or make collections.

If delivery person does make collections and provide billing, s/he may or may not be due the money, depending on the entire situation. If delivery person was dumb enough to be in charge of billing and simply continued to deliver with no payment, delivery person loses because they are stupid. A defense of equitable estoppel. Delivery person did not take actions available within a reasonable period of time making the 1 year billing unfair to the OP as well, delivery person not only failed but refused to mitigate damages.
 

TinkerBelleLuvr

Senior Member
Then again, the OP's contract is with the newspaper company, NOT the carrier. The carrier receives a report stating WHO they should be delivering the paper too. If the carrier chose to deliver anyway, then there was no contract - just a gift.

Not, if the newspaper company listed the OP as a person deserving to recieve the paper, then the carrier's beef would be with the newspaper company being they haven't paid him/her.

I pay my subscription by the year. It is NOT a weekly/monthly bill. I won't pay until another bill shows up. If one doesn't show up, I would have no reminder that any monies were due.

Now, as for the moral thing to do: pay the carrier - you received the paper and they make next to nothing.
 

dlw99

Member
Seeing as the poster has not yet gotten snippy with anyone on this forum, your humiliation comment is not necessary. Just give me one more reason to report you to the moderator. Believe me, it is all too easy.

Jprauseo, please accept my apologies on behalf of this ignorant troll. Yes you do rightly owe the money.
Seeing as AOG agrees that poster owes the money, it would follow that he/she would lose in court, and thereby likely suffer embarassment.

The rules of use in this forum state in part that: ''You agree that you will NOT use the FreeAdvice Forum to post any knowingly false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, or threatening message...''

AOG's submission that I am some sort of ignorant troll could be considered a violation of the rules of use. Mercifully I don't get thrills from tattle-telling on blogs. Hey Pot, it's me, the Kettle, you're black!
 

BOR

Senior Member
Not everyone needs this forum to feel purpose in life, as you apparently do, Anti. Report away.

Poster, if you have a conscience, you will be humiliated in court. I'm trying to save you the trip. You admit you received the paper and did not pay for it. Why do you think it should be free? Do you think the carrier makes a lot of money delivering newspapers?

Why not just pay the bill and cancel the paper if you don't want it anymore?
I have to agree here. The defense of improper Plaintiff will not prevail, IMO..

The person was unjustly enriched by continued delivery.

When I carried papers many many moons ago, I paid for each paper on my lading bill.

IF the delivery person was charged, case basically closed.

One thing though, I can't see the delivery person leaving a paper for over a year without payment??


I want to know pays for the paper, the carrier or the company.
 

jprauseo

Junior Member
Thank you for your responses

All of your imput has been helpful. I have been doing some research on my own into to this matter my calling the actual newspaper, the district manager in charge of the carrier and I even applied for a carrier job.
This is what I have been able to come up with.

I was a Pay by mail (PBM) customer for the last 4 years. When my prepaid subscription was up I would get a bill from the newspaper and I would pre-pay for "x" amount of weeks. After a pre-paid cycle is up, the daily form that the carrier receives says "Carrier collect" instead of "PBM". The Carrier is now responsible to collect money from the customer. The newspaper will reimburse the carrier for up to 2 weeks of non payment. There reason for allowing up to 2 weeks is to avoid this situation. The newspaper realizes that a customer may not want the paper anymore and suggest that the carrier contact the customer within two weeks after a change of status. I use the word "suggest" because they really have no control over an independent contractor. It is up to the carrier to handle their own business. If the subscription is renewed my mail the status will change to PBM.

I had no clue that my subscription was up. I paid for a specific amount and expected to receive the paper for that time period. When my pre-paid Sunday paper was up, it stopped coming. I received a nice little note from a different carrier saying your subscription is up, if you would like to renew call the paper, if not, please leave 1.75 for this issue next week. That was it and the Sunday paper never came again.

The newspaper is telling me they are not responsible, it is the carrier and the district mangers problem because they are independent contractors. They recognize that this is a poor practice on the carrier’s part and that I should have been receiving at least monthly bills. The district manger will not return my phone calls; I have called once a day for the past week and left pleasant messages.

I never signed a contract with the carrier; I always dealt directly with the Newspaper. I never handed any money to the carrier, I even prepaid my tip.

If I start delivering Sports Illustrated to my carriers house once a week can I collect money from her at the end of the year?

On top of this all, she has already been paid for the two weeks of non-payment from the newspaper but is chagrined me for those two weeks.

She buys the paper at a wholesale price but is asking for the retail price. If I lose the case, can I ask the Judge to pay her for the wholesale price, minus the two weeks already paid by the newspaper; because that is the only money she is out.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
this can get quite complex for whatever this ends up costing and since you did receive the paper, in all fairness, should consider simply paying it and moving on.

If you want to argue the thing, you will have to figure out if the delivery person (DP) is given a list of subscribers from their employer. If they d0 (which would almost have to be the case), demand that list. If your name is on that list, the DP is suing the wrong party. The DP would need to sue their employer for telling them to deliver to you. If your name is not on there and the DP continued to deliver, I would argue am equitable estoppel claim and the DP's failure to bill you caused you to believe you were currently paid or the failure of the DP to bill you in a timely manner caused you to not take action to stop the delivery when you realized your subscription had run out.

If the DP wants to argue that you should have realized that your subscription had run out and you failed to take action, I would counter with an argument of the possibility of a friend had given you a gift subscription without your knowledge.

Basically, if the DP was aware they were delivering a paper and the DP was required to collect and failed, it is on the DP. The DP did failed to establish a contract between you and the DP and unilaterally continued to deliver the paper with no promise of payment. Their mistake.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
I have to agree here. The defense of improper Plaintiff will not prevail, IMO..
"Improper Plaintiff" is not a defense, but an issue of standing. If a person without standing brings a case, the court will not even hear it. In the early part of the complaint, the plaintiff has an area where he needs to assert his standing to sue in the first place. The burden is on the plaintiff even before the merits will be determined.
 

jprauseo

Junior Member
Can you explain these terms

Quantum Meruit -

Improper Plantiff

What about Improper Defendant

Equitable estoppel

Maybe with examples with my situation

Thank you
 

tranquility

Senior Member
Quantum Meruit -
The value of the benefit. One sues for such when there is not a contract, but you knew you were getting something of value and didn't stop it.

Improper Plantiff
A term not found in law, but which is trying to convey that only the person who is hurt by an action has standing to sue.

What about Improper Defendant
When the wrong person is sued. It would have no basis here as you are the right guy.

Equitable estoppel
A quasi-contractual remedy where consideration is found when a person reasonably relies on the promise of another to his detriment. The other who made the promise (It is more often called promissory estoppel.) is estopped from claiming there was no consideration. (A contract requires an offer, an acceptance and consideration.)
 

BOR

Senior Member
Can you explain these terms;

Improper Plantiff

Thank you
"Proper Plaintiff" is a term quite frequently used in law, it means the person who is suing must have valid Standing to sue. Standing means the Plaintiff must be real party of interest, not an intervenor.

"Improper" Plaintiff, means they are not the proper plaintiff, as it implies. I have read it used before as I have the term Proper plaintiff.

Most courts use the term "Improper Standing", but I have read them together or interchangeably.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top