But I am not wrongTuco wrote:![]()
![]()
![]()
Funniest post I've read for about a week.
Give yourself a big pat on the back Gman.
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
Moderator: ArthurWankspittle
But I am not wrongTuco wrote:![]()
![]()
![]()
Funniest post I've read for about a week.
Give yourself a big pat on the back Gman.
Of course you're not Gman.NYGman wrote:But I am not wrongTuco wrote:![]()
![]()
![]()
Funniest post I've read for about a week.
Give yourself a big pat on the back Gman.![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
My brother is hired all the time to write a legal letter that includes the threat of a law suit, in order to get a result. The intent may never be to go to court. Perhaps this DCA strategy was to just file the paperwork, and hope for settlement. You called their bluff, good on you, You win a Prize, DING DING DING.Tuco wrote:Of course you're not Gman.
It was all a bluff because they hadn't done their work properly, or even a conflict with the specialist debt solicitor.
I'm kicking myself for not working this out.
Actually Gman-I know exactly why they dropped their case. I issued a counterclaimNYGman wrote:My point was you have no clue why they dropped the case, you have made assumptions about why they did, that align with your legal thinking. What we do know for sure is that you can not point to this dropping the case, as proof your legal theories have any merit at all. Their is also no way you can rely on repeating the result consistently.Tuco wrote:Of course you're not Gman.
It was all a bluff because they hadn't done their work properly, or even a conflict with the specialist debt solicitor.
I'm kicking myself for not working this out.
Nope, you filed a counterclaim, and they never replied, but that isn't proof that one caused the other. They could have lost your file when a pile of them fell over and yours dropped behind the cabinets...you just don't know.Actually Gman-I know exactly why they dropped their case. I issued a counterclaim
He does Assume an awful lot, and as they say...Gregg wrote:Nope, you filed a counterclaim, and they never replied, but that isn't proof that one caused the other. They could have lost your file when a pile of them fell over and yours dropped behind the cabinets...you just don't know.Actually Gman-I know exactly why they dropped their case. I issued a counterclaim
Can you actually read Gman?NYGman wrote:He does Assume an awful lot, and as they say...Gregg wrote:Nope, you filed a counterclaim, and they never replied, but that isn't proof that one caused the other. They could have lost your file when a pile of them fell over and yours dropped behind the cabinets...you just don't know.Actually Gman-I know exactly why they dropped their case. I issued a counterclaim
True but they probably use that excuse as to where the missing agreement has gone.Gregg wrote:Nope, you filed a counterclaim, and they never replied, but that isn't proof that one caused the other. They could have lost your file when a pile of them fell over and yours dropped behind the cabinets...you just don't know.Actually Gman-I know exactly why they dropped their case. I issued a counterclaim
Drop what?AndyK wrote:Words, words, words.
How about some verifiable proof to support your allegations?
Otherwise, drop it.
I for one have not tried to disprove what you are saying. I have however asked you a few times to prove what you are saying. So far you have offered absolutely no proof. All you have offered up to this point is opinion and assumption.Tuco wrote:
The trouble with you Gman as well as several other idiots on here, you just don't like what I'm saying so you come on here and try to disprove it at any lengths, posting absolute crap in the process.
Some go as far as to issue a claim which is never served.NYGman wrote: My brother is hired all the time to write a legal letter that includes the threat of a law suit, in order to get a result. The intent may never be to go to court.
Creditor behaviour isn't logically explained, it's all rather random. For some, ignoring has worked wonders while for others, it has brought on claims.longdog wrote:Just for comparison...
In 2004 I had debts of over £10,000 and no assets or income to speak of.
None of my creditors followed through with any of their many legal threats and now they are all statute barred.
My cunning legal strategy?.. I ignored them.
WORSHIP ME!!!!
Why not?grixit wrote:I think it's time to give Tuco his own pigpen.
Yes, but that's really not the point. What's important is the seriousness and effect of the breach.Tuco wrote:If a party include a term in a contract and then do not adhere to it, it can only be a breach, nothing else.
How in God's name can they be right? On what grounds? Half of the clowns don't even understand the point, they think I am challenging the assignment of a debt.Burnaby49 wrote:I checked this discussion this afternoon to find it had increased another four pages since my last look at it. All to no purpose. This is all just going around in circles. Clearly any explanation any of you make will not get tuco to admit that he is wrong and you are right. Yesterday Wes took a flamethrower to much of the recent posting but to no visible effect. It's like trying to prune Kudzu. So what's the point? It's just giving extra work to the moderators who have to review this but it won't resolve anything if resolving means changing opinions as a result of argument and discussion.