In a case in which the Eighth Circuit found against a debtor on her claim against a collection agency based on the FDCPA, the court nevertheless adopted a standard followed by other circuits in defining when a communication is “…in connection with the collection of any debt” for purposes of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. Sarah McIvor v. Credit Control Services, Inc., No. 14-1164 (December 4, 2014).
Latest Posts
| 01.17.2015 |
|
| 01.16.2015 |
In a case that will likely cause debt collectors seeking to collect time-barred obligations grave concern, the Sixth Circuit recently ruled that making an offer to settle a time-barred debt at a discount could mislead an unsophisticated consumer to believe the debt could be enforced in court in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Buchanan v. Northland Group, Inc., No. 13-2523 (January 13, 2015). |
| 01.16.2015 |
Here is good news for a certain subset of Manufacturer’s Corner readers. |
| 01.13.2015 |
This is not a litigation column, but I’m a trial attorney, so litigation is always on my mind. I’ve been hearing a lot of chatter lately about consumer class actions. Specifically: what must a putative consumer class do to show that the class members are ascertainable – that is, that the court and the lawyers and the class members can figure out who is in the class and who is not. |
| 01.07.2015 |
Here’s a thing that probably appears in your standard terms and conditions: “This agreement cannot be modified or rescinded, except in writing signed by an authorized agent of [your company].” You can go ahead and check. It’s probably down toward the bottom, above the miscellaneous provisions like choice of law. |
| 12.19.2014 |
An easily-overlooked portion of a contract for the sale of goods is the one that addresses what notice the buyer must give the seller in the event the goods do not conform to contract specifications or warranties. These provisions warrant your close attention, however, because they can be outcome-determinative in the event of litigation over the alleged non-conformity. |
| 11.26.2014 |
Here is a troubling new case from the Missouri Supreme Court. And I don’t mean troubling in the abstract sense of “oh maybe there could be liability down the road if you don’t do this,” which is pretty much the bread and butter of this column. I mean troubling in the “you may have already botched this, so you better pull out the books and call the accountants and lawyers” sense. |
| 11.21.2014 |
Now that we have completed our brief detour into what the Supreme Court could maybe do with the BP oil spill case if it decides to do anything with it, we resume our ongoing series on what law applies when you incorporate software into your products. |
| 11.16.2014 |
We take a break from our series on incorporating software into your products to talk about a case the Supreme Court is considering that may prove significant to manufacturers. This column is not typically the place to go for predictions on what the Supreme Court may do, but I want to bring this case to your attention, and circumstances are forcing me to do it now rather than later. |
| 11.07.2014 |
In the first installment of this series, we discussed the general scope of Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, and, in the broadest terms, whether and when the purchase or sale of software falls within that scope. In this installment, we’ll move toward our goal of understanding when your purchase or sale of software is governed by Article 2 by looking at how the question has been treated by various courts over time. |