Contractor signed on my LLC's behalf

[quincy]

smutlydog, because it appears from what you have said that the credit card debt is yours - given that it was charged to a card in your name that you let your contractor use - your first step probably should be to take care of the $6000 debt to avoid a lawsuit and (probable) judgment being issued against you in court. You could first try to negotiate with the debt collector for a lower payoff amount.

Once the debt is taken care of (paid in full), then you can consider filing a small claims suit against your contractor to recover the $6000 you were obligated to pay.

You will need some sort of evidence of the agreement you had with your contractor, showing that he agreed to be responsible for paying the magazine company for the year of advertising.

Here is a link to filing a small claims suit, but you will want to contact the applicable court for any rules specific to that court:

https://gato-docs.its.txst.edu/jcr:2c0d52a4-6fe2-47b4-b78f-d4380726568c/SRL - small claim plaintiff.docx

 

[Taxing Matters]

May it be assumed that somewhere within the above lengthy response there's a concession that the "it never hurts" statement should not be taken as categorical?

If that was your focus of your reply, you could have saved us both some time by stating that, without the snark, then I'd have then responded differently. If it makes you happy, yes I concede that the statement was overbroad.

And that when expressed as an unqualified proposition it has the likelihood of misleading the laity to thinking that such efforts are generally accepted as a feature of normal trial tactics and as evidence of good faith and might curry favor with the court?

Perhaps it would. But surely you yourself are not perfect and have made some mistakes in things you've said or written. I hope that anyone who pointed that out to you did that more professionally than you did here. If you try to tell me you are perfect, I won't buy that line.

 

[quincy]

“ ‘Get off your high horse, Josephine, because if you fall it won’t be pretty.’ I stuff my hands into my pockets and walk away. I didn’t want to blow up at her, but she egged me on.”

- Heidi McLaughlin, “Forever My Girl”

 

[Taxing Matters]

“ ‘Get off your high horse, Josephine, because if you fall it won’t be pretty.’ I stuff my hands into my pockets and walk away. I didn’t want to blow up at her, but she egged me on.”

- Heidi McLaughlin, “Forever My Girl”

To whom is that post directed?

 

[quincy]

To whom is that post directed?

Anyone and everyone.

 

[Litigator22]

. . .
Once the debt is taken care of (paid in full), then you can consider filing a small claims suit against your contractor to recover the $6000 you were obligated to pay.

You will need some sort of evidence of the agreement you had with your contractor, showing that he agreed to be responsible for paying the magazine company for the year of advertising.

But suppose the OP cannot produce a writing signed by the contractor agreeing to be responsible for paying the magazine company? What then, Q?

Would the "Main Purpose Doctrine" as an exception to the surety proviso of the statute of frauds apply here? Is it recognized by the Texas courts? Personally, I think not. As I don't see any economic advantage flowing directly to the alleged contractor/promisor.

But then it has always been my understanding that the universally adopted statute mandating written, signed evidence of a promise to answer for the debt of another does not apply when the oral promise is coincident to the creation of the debt. And this regardless of the absence of an economic advantage to the promisor

More information seems needed.

However, as I mentioned earlier my suspicions are that the OP is disposed to pattern info as he sees it best suited to protect his interests. Incidents of people having no vested interest in a business and yet agreeing to underwrite advertising costs benefiting that business are not commonplace!

 

[Litigator22]

If that was your focus of your reply, you could have saved us both some time by stating that, without the snark, then I'd have then responded- differently. If it makes you happy, yes I concede that the statement was overbroad.
Perhaps it would. But surely you yourself are not perfect and have made some mistakes in things you've said or written. I hope that anyone who pointed that out to you did that more professionally than you did here. If you try to tell me you are perfect, I won't buy that line.

Well, rest assured that I'm not selling that line. I make not claim of perfection. Not as to any category.

Yes, I'm guilty of having made mistakes - life in general and including those made over the course of forty plus years as a private practitioner. Some best forgotten and some making me thankful for E & O!

HOWEVER, I've never gone to such great lengths in a seemingly desperate attempt to justify them! Perhaps so from military life where anything but "I have no excuse, Sir" resulted in unpleasantries.

Adding, as you may ultimately learn that an admission of fault often instantly defuses a would-be quarrelsome opponent. E.g. see a baboon offer up an unprotected hand to be bitten by one more dominant as a sign of submission. (Even as here a belated one.)
___________________________

But please get this "snark business;' out of your overly sensitive craw! One's skin needs to be paper thin to find the word disturb in the context as used as some form of a reprimand! If you can't handle criticism without coming to a boil, you are in the wrong profession! Or in the least need to avoid its adversarial forms.

Incidentally, if you run into him (which would be nice, unless in the saddle) tell your toady in AZ to please stuff it. Ha!

 

[Taxing Matters]

Well, rest assured that I'm not selling that line. I make not claim of perfection. Not as to any category.

Yes, I'm guilty of having made mistakes - life in general and including those made over the course of forty plus years as a private practitioner. Some best forgotten and some making me thankful for E & O!

I appreciate the honesty in that.

HOWEVER, I've never gone to such great lengths in a seemingly desperate attempt to justify them! Perhaps so from military life where anything but "I have no excuse, Sir" resulted in unpleasantries.

I appreciate too your service to the country, too. But you are also doing the same thing you accuse me of above to justify your position.. I think we are both guilty of that in this thread.

Adding, as you may ultimately learn that an admission of fault often instantly defuses a would-be quarrelsome opponent. E.g. see a baboon offer up an unprotected hand to be bitten by one more dominant as a sign of submission. (Even as here a belated one.)

I guess you did not read my previous post very well in which I conceded I was overbroad? If you did, then why are you continuing to dwell on that? Especially given what you wrote above that an admission of fault "instantly defuses" a fight. I see no point to your last post if that is truly what you think.

As far as I'm concerned this conversation is done. I see no useful purpose in continuing this further.

BTW, I do like your posts where you respond to people asking questions in a constructive manner. The idea on these boards is to help out those people who have legal questions, and when you do that in a constructive manner I certainly admire the knowledge you bring here. I may not always agree with you on the law, but lawyers argue over that all time. Let us now put aside the personal attacks, shall we?

 

[quincy]

But suppose the OP cannot produce a writing signed by the contractor agreeing to be responsible for paying the magazine company? What then, Q?

Would the "Main Purpose Doctrine" as an exception to the surety proviso of the statute of frauds apply here? Is it recognized by the Texas courts? Personally, I think not. As I don't see any economic advantage flowing directly to the alleged contractor/promisor.

But then it has always been my understanding that the universally adopted statute mandating written, signed evidence of a promise to answer for the debt of another does not apply when the oral promise is coincident to the creation of the debt. And this regardless of the absence of an economic advantage to the promisor

More information seems needed.

However, as I mentioned earlier my suspicions are that the OP is disposed to pattern info as he sees it best suited to protect his interests. Incidents of people having no vested interest in a business and yet agreeing to underwrite advertising costs benefiting that business are not commonplace!

I suppose if there is no compelling evidence of an agreement, smutlydog is stuck with the cost of the unwanted magazine advertising on his own, but he gains a valuable lesson about lending out credit cards.



“Marge, you can’t keep blaming yourself. Just blame yourself once and move on.”
- Homer Simpson

 

[Litigator22]

I suppose if there is no compelling evidence (?) of an agreement, smutlydog is stuck with the cost of the unwanted magazine advertising on his own, but he gains a valuable lesson about lending out credit cards.

Please don't use words distorting the clear, unequivocal intent of the statute. It's confusing and misleading.

The statute of frauds simply states that to be enforceable "a promise by one person to answer for the debt of another person must be in writing and signed by the person to be charged or by someone lawfully authorized to sign for him". See: Texas B & C Code, Section 26.01 (b)(2)

Your adjective compelling (as if evidence rousing and evoking strong interest, conviction or persuasion would suffice) does not appear in the statute.
_____________________

There are as I've mentioned exceptions to the rule, which may or may not apply. For instance, the somewhat self-explanatory "Main Purpose Doctrine". But sufficient information is lacking, and no one seems interested in supplying it. Adios.

 

[quincy]

... Adios.

Fingers crossed.