Newspaper delivery

[justalayman]

Shaindy Fenton and Shaindy Fenton, Inc.,plaintiff/cross-defendant-appellee, v. Gary A. Freedman, Richard Freedman and Judith Freedman,defendants/counter Claimants-appellants - 748 F.2d 1358 - Justia US Court of Appeals Cases and Opinions

The Freedmans objected, stating that Shaindy Fenton, Inc. lacked capacity to sue in California and was therefore an improper plaintiff.

scroll down to point 18

well, it showed up in a 9th circuit US court of appeals case. I would have to guess somebody considers it to be a proper and acceptable term.

 

[BOR]

Layman, I have read it before in briefs also. Now, as I said, Proper plaintiff is used more frequently, so IMproper would mean NOT proper.

Sometimes the defendant uses it, and sometimes the court will use it instead of the term Standing or both.

 

[jprauseo]

Equitable estoppel

What about Equitable estoppel?

My understanding is that the paper carrier should have notified me at some point that I was paying her, in a reasonable time frame. The newspaper will allow for up to 2 weeks of non-payment, meaning they will pay a carrier for up to 2 weeks of non payment. When speaking to the people at the newspaper they stated that this is done to provide the carrier time to notify the customer that they are on carrier collect. If the customer chooses to continue to get the paper they can either call up and pay by mail or pay the carrier.

I never had that option; she never contacted me until 63 weeks after my pre-paid service ran out. There has to be some statute.

If not, you are telling me that she could have continued to deliver the paper for 5 years and then collect.

Also, there were some days were the paper just sat there. There is no proof that I ever received the paper everyday. I know for a fact that my neighbor pick it up a few times because it was just there and/or we were away for a day or two.


I think this is a bunch of bologna. It is right vs wrong. You do not assume anything. I should have been billed. I should have been notified that my prepaid service was up. I would never work more than a week without getting paid.

Her fault, not mine.

 

[justalayman]

that would be based on whether the DP knew you had not paid. If the paper company gave DP a list of customers to deliver to, then that is what they do. At that point, the contract is not between you and DP but paper company and DP and a separate contract between you and paper company.

Until you know why DP continued to deliver papers, you cannot form a defense to any specific possibility.

Her fault, not mine.

Maybe, maybe not. You either don't have or haven't given us enough information to make that determination.

 

[KnownOne]

OP, all you must do is return what is not yours - the newspapers, in this case, seeing as you did not pay for them.

 

[BOR]

that would be based on whether the DP knew you had not paid. If the paper company gave DP a list of customers to deliver to, then that is what they do. At that point, the contract is not between you and DP but paper company and DP and a separate contract between you and paper company.

Until you know why DP continued to deliver papers, you cannot form a defense to any specific possibility.


Maybe, maybe not. You either don't have or haven't given us enough information to make that determination.

An implied contract in law/quasi contract is evident here also, regardless of the subscription ending, ya think??

 

[jprauseo]

response

The Carrier get a daily print out of who she should bring a paper to.

Some say PBM (pay by mail)

Some say CC (Carrier collect)

I have asked both the newspaper and her district manager for a copy of the daily print out and both said they could not give me one for privacy reasons (BS) they just want me to find a mistake. But they were certain that she knew when my status changed from PBM to CC.

I have been told that once my pre-paid account is finished I automatically go to CC. Once I go from PBM to CC, it is up to the carrier to make contact with me and let me know I am paying her if I still want the paper. I have be told by other district mangers that they all have different rules on how the carrier should bill their customers. They can not they the carrier how to run their business but the strongly suggest that the do it certain ways. The most common answer I have been getting from the other district mangers is "they should contact you within the first two weeks and then bill you monthly". The all felt it was strange that she let it go over a year (63 weeks) and agreed that she either kept poor records or she is dumb.

I have also spoke to several people in my neighborhood about this situation. They have told me that she has been doing this for years. She sets up different people for different months - 5 people pay $100.00 in March, 5 others pay $100.00 in April etc. this way she has a steady flow of 500.00 bucks each month. One told me he argued with her at first and she threatened to take him to court. He gave in because he loves reading the paper everyday.

Honestly, if she had given me a bill within the first month or two, I would have paid and told I was all done. But it is the principle here. You do not just assume that someone is going to pay you that much money with out speaking to them about it first.

What other information do you need to understand where I am coming from?

 

[justalayman]

jprauseo;2602105]The Carrier get a daily print out of who she should bring a paper to.

Some say PBM (pay by mail)

Some say CC (Carrier collect)

and you have to have that to argue your case.

I have asked both the newspaper and her district manager for a copy of the daily print out and both said they could not give me one for privacy reasons (BS) they just want me to find a mistake. But they were certain that she knew when my status changed from PBM to CC.

something you will have to seek through discovery then

Honestly, if she had given me a bill within the first month or two, I would have paid and told I was all done. But it is the principle here. You do not just assume that someone is going to pay you that much money with out speaking to them about it first.

arguing a principle, unless it is a legal principle, will surely cause you to lose in court.

What other information do you need to understand where I am coming from?

whether the DP knew you were PBM or CC.

 

[jprauseo]

questions

Can I contact the delivery person at this point or should I stay away.


How can I get a copy of the daily print outs? Do they have to give them to me if they exist?

 

[justalayman]

E=jprauseo;2602191]Can I contact the delivery person at this point or should I stay away.

you can. doesn't mean he has to comply with your request.

How can I get a copy of the daily print outs? Do they have to give them to me if they exist?[

since it appears you have already been refused once, the only way I can see is via discovery.

 

[jprauseo]

Follow up

I have done some more research on this matter.

The carrier knew that I was on carrier collect but never informed me until 63 weeks later.

She did receive a daily print out stating that my subscription had ended but continued to deliver the paper with the assumption that I wanted it.

According to the district manager, she should have not let this go for as long as she did and should have contacted me within the first month of being on carrier collect. That being said, he can not tell her how to run her business. So basically it comes down to what’s right and wrong.

Is using the defense of equitable estopple my best defense? I would be willing to pay for a month of the paper but not the entire 63 weeks. Can I suggest that to the Judge or does the Judge decide what was a reasonable time frame?

What else can I use as a defense.

 

[justalayman]

yes, the judge does get to decide what is reasonable.



here is what I suspect will happen.

the judge will ask you if you would have continued your subscription for the time in question. If you answer yes, I suspect the judge will order you pay. If you would not have continued the paper beyond the subscription you had paid for, I would guess the judge will either find in favor of you or give the DP a partial award.

so, would you have continued the subscription? I do not know how long you had been a subscriber but based on your posts, I would think a considerable amount of time, like in terms of years. That will weigh against any claim you would not have continued your subscription.

I doubt it will come down to the judge finding totally in your favor. That would be seen as punitive to the DP and especially small claims courts tend to avoid punitive actions. They tend to deal with equitable solutions and that often means splitting the difference in any contested but not clearly defined situations.

 

[jprauseo]

re

That sounds reasonable. I did not renew my Sunday paper when my subscription ran out. That happened some time before the daily paper. My intent was not to renew the daily paper when that subscription was up. I am a school teacher and the paper is regularly available at school. When not at school I will buy the paper on occasion, but it is also available online.

Thanks for your help

I will keep you posted on the verdict

 

[MsShauna]

Ok wouldn't the delivery person be responsible for mitigating their damages? Depending on the Judge doesn't the court usually interpret that to about 3 months? Clearly the delivery person was aware that they did not receive payment and they noticed it before a year. Morally some think she should pay for the paper but legally I do not think she would have to because the delivery person is at fault as well.

 

[jprauseo]

Court date is Aug 25th

How do I get ready for this case?

How does this work?

Will I have a chance to defened myself?

Do I mention Equitable estopple?