Chapter 24, Problem 7BCP

(a)

Summary Introduction

Case summary: Person BS formed a company CI. The company bought more than 2.2 million bounced checks on their face value and levied a charge of $\text{\$}$125 to $\text{\$}$130 on each check. The company told its employees to make false threats relating to arrest and prosecution to the drawers. The company never initiated the prosecution against the drawer. The employees followed the instruction of the company and threatened the drawer. They abused the drawers as idiots, deadbeats, thieves, and retards. Person BS believed that the company does not fall under FDCPA as they were not debt collecting agency. The case was filed against check investors under the FDCPA.

To find: The violation of FDCPA by the methods used by company CI.

Summary Introduction

Case summary: Person BS formed a company CI. The company bought more than 2.2 million bounced checks on their face value and levied a charge of $\text{\$}$125 to $\text{\$}$130 on each check. The company told its employees to make false threats relating to arrest and prosecution to the drawers. The company never initiated the prosecution against the drawer. The employees followed the instruction of the company and threatened the drawer. They abused the drawers as idiots, deadbeats, thieves, and retards. BS believed that the company does not fall under FDCPA as they were not debt collecting agency. The case was filed against check investors under the FDCPA.

To find : The ethics of company CI.

Summary Introduction

Case summary:Person BS formed a company CI. The company bought more than 2.2 million bounced checks on their face value and levied a charge of $\text{\$}$125 to $\text{\$}$130 on each check. The company told its employees to make false threats relating to arrest and prosecution to the drawers. The company never initiated the prosecution against the drawer. The employees followed the instruction of the company and threatened the drawer. They abused the drawers as idiots, deadbeats, thieves, and retards. BS believed that the company does not fall under FDCPA as they were not debt collecting agency. The case was filed against check investors under the FDCPA.

To find :The argument of company CI.

Summary Introduction

Case summary:Person BS formed a company CI. The company bought more than 2.2 million bounced checks on their face value and levied a charge of $\text{\$}$125 to $\text{\$}$130 on each check. The company told its employees to make false threats relating to arrest and prosecution to the drawers. The company never initiated the prosecution against the drawer. The employees followed the instruction of the company and threatened the drawer. They abused the drawers as idiots, deadbeats, thieves, and retards. BS believed that the company does not fall under FDCPA as they were not debt collecting agency. The case was filed against check investors under the FDCPA.

To find :Whether deadbeats are primary beneficieries under FDCPA.

Summary Introduction

Case summary:Person BS formed a company CI. The company bought more than 2.2 million bounced checks on their face value and levied a charge of $\text{\$}$125 to $\text{\$}$130 on each check. The company told its employees to make false threats relating to arrest and prosecution to the drawers. The company never initiated the prosecution against the drawer. The employees followed the instruction of the company and threatened the drawer. They abused the drawers as idiots, deadbeats, thieves, and retards. BS believed that the company does not fall under FDCPA as they were not debt collecting agency. The case was filed against check investors under the FDCPA.

To find :The characterization of deadbeats under FDCPA.