|
Hello everyone
Heres the situation. I borrowed $500 from this guy,(lets call him
*A*), and havent paid it back yet. I intend to do so but I just found
out that he wants to sue me to get the money back. The thing is that
there is no witness/written document that he gave me the money. A
mutal friend of ours told me that *A* has filed a case with the judge
and now Im being sued. Is this possible that he can do so? What
should I do in this situation?
Thanks for any help
Vince.
|
| |
| |
Yes
Hello everyone
Heres the situation. I borrowed $500 from this guy,(lets call him
*A*), and havent paid it back yet. I intend to do so but I just found
out that he wants to sue me to get the money back. The thing is that
there is no witness/written document that he gave me the money. A
mutal friend of ours told me that *A* has filed a case with the judge
and now Im being sued. Is this possible that he can do so? What
should I do in this situation?
Thanks for any help
Vince.
|
| |
| |
On 25 Sep 2004 07:19:00 -0700, jpkyano69@yahoo.com (Vince Black)
wrote:
Hello everyone
Heres the situation. I borrowed $500 from this guy,(lets call him
*A*), and havent paid it back yet. I intend to do so but I just found
out that he wants to sue me to get the money back. The thing is that
there is no witness/written document that he gave me the money. A
mutal friend of ours told me that *A* has filed a case with the judge
and now Im being sued. Is this possible that he can do so?
Yes. Many agreements do not need to be in writing to be enforceable.
An informal loan of a small amount of money is among the kinds of
agreement that do not fall under the "Statute of Frauds" and so do not
need to be in writing.
What should I do in this situation?
Prepare to defend, or prepare to pay him back. If he has indeed filed,
you should be receiving a formal complaint, which you will need to
answer and proceed from there.
A deal this small between private parties is rarely enough to get
lawyers involved; if it goes to court, it ends up in Small Claims. But
if it turns out he is represented by a lawyer, you will also need to
be, unless you relish unequal combat.
--
Not a lawyer,
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
Well now that you have confessed judgment, all he needs to do is get this
statement off the web and he wins.
Hello everyone
Heres the situation. I borrowed $500 from this guy,(lets call him
*A*), and havent paid it back yet. I intend to do so but I just found
out that he wants to sue me to get the money back. The thing is that
there is no witness/written document that he gave me the money. A
mutal friend of ours told me that *A* has filed a case with the judge
and now Im being sued. Is this possible that he can do so? What
should I do in this situation?
Thanks for any help
Vince.
|
| |
| |
In article <8c20d0c4.0409250619.40d27d64@posting.google.com>,
jpkyano69@yahoo.com (Vince Black) wrote:
Hello everyone
Heres the situation. I borrowed $500 from this guy,(lets call him
*A*), and havent paid it back yet. I intend to do so but I just found
out that he wants to sue me to get the money back. The thing is that
there is no witness/written document that he gave me the money. A
mutal friend of ours told me that *A* has filed a case with the judge
and now Im being sued. Is this possible that he can do so? What
should I do in this situation?
Under the Uniform Commercial Code, any contract for $500 or more has to
be in writing to be enforceable.
It's called the "statute of frauds".
|
| |
| |
On 26 Sep 2004, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
jpkyano69@yahoo.com (Vince Black) wrote:
Under the Uniform Commercial Code, . . .
. . . where it applies . . .
. . . any contract for $500 or more . . .
. . . for the sale of goods . . .
. . . has to be in writing to be enforceable.
It's called the "statute of frauds".
And it doesn't apply to allegedly unwitnessed oral agreements to repay
a loan. Further, the OP is not correct to say there is not a witness
to the loan (unless, perhaps, the lender has forgotten or has died).
|
| |
| |
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <8c20d0c4.0409250619.40d27d64@posting.google.com>,
jpkyano69@yahoo.com (Vince Black) wrote:
Under the Uniform Commercial Code, any contract for $500 or more has to
be in writing to be enforceable.
It's called the "statute of frauds".
UCC is for the "sale" of goods and services, not loans.
g-w
|
| |
| |
On 25 Sep 2004 07:19:00 -0700, jpkyano69@yahoo.com (Vince Black)
Hello everyone
Heres the situation. I borrowed $500 from this guy,(lets call him
*A*), and havent paid it back yet. I intend to do so but I just found
out that he wants to sue me to get the money back. The thing is that
there is no witness/written document that he gave me the money. A
mutal friend of ours told me that *A* has filed a case with the judge
and now Im being sued. Is this possible that he can do so? What
should I do in this situation?
Thanks for any help
I'm not a lawyer, and it may not be required, but I've heard that you
should send a demand letter before filing something like this.
That advice at the very least let's the person about to be sued have a
chance to make good before paying court fees to file, etc...
Vince.
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 01:10:21 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
In article <8c20d0c4.0409250619.40d27d64@posting.google.com>,
jpkyano69@yahoo.com (Vince Black) wrote:
Under the Uniform Commercial Code, any contract for $500 or more has to
be in writing to be enforceable.
It's called the "statute of frauds".
No, that doesn't apply, because it's only for the sale of goods. This
is an unsecured loan of money, and that can be for any amount without
coming under the Statute of Frauds. To oversimplify, the Statute of
Frauds covers a contract to go surety for another, a contract not to
be performed within one year or not to be performed within the
lifetime of the promisor, or a contract to sell real estate. The UCC
adds contracts for the sale of goods over $500 to the Statute of
Frauds.
--
Not a lawyer,
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
Who are you trying to B.S. ? You never had any intention of paying the
" friend " back. Why not move on to another friend that is not onto you yet?
With friends like you A* should be pennyless in no time ..
Christopher Green wrote:
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 01:10:21 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
No, that doesn't apply, because it's only for the sale of goods. This
is an unsecured loan of money, and that can be for any amount without
coming under the Statute of Frauds. To oversimplify, the Statute of
Frauds covers a contract to go surety for another, a contract not to
be performed within one year or not to be performed within the
lifetime of the promisor, or a contract to sell real estate. The UCC
adds contracts for the sale of goods over $500 to the Statute of
Frauds.
|
| |
| |
invntrr <invntrr@msn.com> wrote in message news:<EuQ5d.2250$dt2.1250@trnddc09>...
Who are you trying to B.S. ? You never had any intention of paying the
" friend " back. Why not move on to another friend that is not onto you yet?
With friends like you A* should be pennyless in no time ..
Please read the thread more carefully.
It is the OP who is seeking to compel his "friend" to pay him back.
Or did you merely wish to break wind in print?
--
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
cj.green@worldnet.att.net (Christopher Green) wrote in message news:<c31fa7b1.0409270903.57cc82a@posting.google.com>...
invntrr <invntrr@msn.com> wrote in message news:<EuQ5d.2250$dt2.1250@trnddc09>...
Please read the thread more carefully.
It is the OP who is seeking to compel his "friend" to pay him back.
Or did you merely wish to break wind in print?
My apology. It was the OP who was seeking to avoid the debt.
I do not apologize to "invntrr" for calling him on being unparliamentary.
--
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
Unparliamentary ? Well....Exxxcccuuussse me ... What a @$#*nozzle.
First you can't read .. then you refuse to apologize for your
obnoxious retort.
I had the insight to see through this deadbeats obvious attempt to "
Stiff " someone... and ... it's the same insight that uncovers your
elitist mentality .. hovering above the " little people " .
No doubt you know everything ... and .. no doubt your children are one
drugs as an escape from you ... who could blame theme ?
Tom
Christopher Green wrote:
cj.green@worldnet.att.net (Christopher Green) wrote in message news:<c31fa7b1.0409270903.57cc82a@posting.google.com>...
My apology. It was the OP who was seeking to avoid the debt.
I do not apologize to "invntrr" for calling him on being unparliamentary.
|
| |
| |
invntrr <invntrr@msn.com> wrote in message news:<rVn6d.10792$Ym1.765@trnddc03>...
[nothing]
GoAT
|
| |
| |
invntrr wrote:
Unparliamentary ? Well....Exxxcccuuussse me ... What a @$#*nozzle.
First you can't read .. then you refuse to apologize for your obnoxious
retort.
I had the insight to see through this deadbeats obvious attempt to "
Stiff " someone... and ... it's the same insight that uncovers your
elitist mentality .. hovering above the " little people " .
No doubt you know everything ... and .. no doubt your children are one
drugs as an escape from you ... who could blame theme ?
Tom
Christopher Green wrote:
|
| |
| |
