While it is true that a debt collector may enjoy some rights on the consumer he has no reason or justification to take law in his own hands. As such, any action that a debt collector may take against a consumer must be a legal action (FDCPA 808). Even before applying the FDCPA Act to this case one can evaluate some issues here and there. Firstly, the decision of Casey Consumer to purchase the items must have been due to the fact that he could afford to pay them later. It is also clear that he had plans to pay for the items from the profits realized by the business.
This is because Casey Consumer could no longer service his debt after his business failed financially. To this extent the consumer had short-changed the two vendors and the stronger methods applied to collect debt would suffice. However, the way RGM and GBH carried out the exercise was in contravention of the FDCPA Act. Although the debt collectors do not directly abuse the Casey Consumer it can be argued that they harassed her through threats and even involving her parents.
In fact, the Act directs that a debt collector should only stick to what pertains to the debt and should follow the exact details of the consumer. This study sees no reason at all why the debt collectors involved the parents in this matter. It was illegal, unethical and outside the limits of FDCPA Act. Well, it is evident that both GBH and RGM wrote to the Casey Consumer 30 days before but then were the other procedures adhered to. The case does not show if the consumer got an opportunity to react or even express her views if she wanted to continue with the original debt collector or not.
The Act also prohibits the debt collector from taking property without the prior consent of the original debt collector or court order. This study wonders if the debt collectors had any permission to take the property of the consumer or even threatening to take it. Yes, this consumer ought to be compensated for the mental distractions she went through and the debt collectors should compensate her equal amount she owes them. Yes, she owes them and she deserves to pay but then 70% of the measures taken against her are illegal.
This section will give an overview of the elements of Product Liability Act and manufacturer’s responsibility to deliver only quality products. This will then be applied to the case between Bob, sister and Toyota. The Product Liability Act has got three aspects namely (GLG 1): a) Strict Liability b) Fault Based Liability c) Contractual Liability In strict liability it holds that the producer is responsible for the damages resulting from his products. Faulty based liability enables the claimant to use the producer on non-contractual grounds.
In particular, it safeguards the rights of the aggrieved party through the provisions of the Civil Code without the need for a contract justification (GLG 2). In contract liability the claimant is safeguarded from malicious breach of contract especially if a contract existed between him and the producer. In this regard, the aggrieved party can pursue warranty compensation in case the producer delivers a defective, sub-standard or dangerous product (GLG 2).