I appreciate the fact that you are doing more than the average pro se litigant and are actually getting involved in the discovery process. However, I would suggest that these issues will ultimately provide you little relief.
As to the contract, while it would help their case to have a signed contract, it is not required. They can prove a contractual relationship by way of your testimony or even by way of the fact that you clearly used the credit card.
Similarly, I don't see the unjust enrichment argument getting you very far. The definition of unjust enrichment is a benefit for which the one enriched has not paid or worked and morally and ethically should not keep. Unfortunately, your situation does not meet either part of this definition. First, they did pay for the benefit. Second, there is nothing morally or ethically improper here.
I regret that my answer is unfavorable, but please understand that it would be unfair to you (and unprofessional of me) to provide you with anything less than a truthful response.
Please let me know if anything requires clarification.
Also, several customers have asked how they may direct a question to me in particular. If you specifically want me to assist you in your legal matter, just put "FOR JOSEPH" in the subject line and I will gladly pick up the question as soon as I am on-line.
In the context of credit card debt, no, I have not seen the lack of a signed contract work for the defendant.
As to the ethical issue, the law does not consider the purchase of debt for a low price to be unethical. If the original creditor wants to sell for pennies on the dollar, that is their right and it does not create an ethical issue for the buyer. From a purely legal standpoint, unjust enrichment could more easily apply to the dismissal of the case. If the case were dismissed because of the sale of the debt, the debtor would be unjustly enriched in that he would have been relieved of the debt that he created.
I'm sure these are not the answers that you want, unfortunately, these issues simply will not prevail for you.
One last question and then i will hit answer.Is there a pretrial.Somebody told me they try that to settle the case before trial? Also ,the assignment of my debt the bill of sale is very general where it says they sold 300mil totaling 120,000 accts. without my name on the assignment.They just attach my name and acct number but nothing showing my name and new creditor.--is that an opnening?
Finally it just seems these junk debt collectors actually due unduly enrich themselves on accts they buy for nothing.That should be banned or at least the funds should go back to the original creditor not to unproductive lawyers(no offense to u).I know i have my faults here for getting in my situation but it seems like a joke segment in our economy which I have thought about exposing and explaining to CNN or some other investigatibve news channel.My plaintiff said they would not reveal how much they bought the acct for due to TRADE SECRETS ---what a joke!
Yes, settling a case before trial is always a viable option. It would be prudent to contemplate what you would consider a satisfactory result. There are two primary factors to take into consideration, the amount of the settlement and the time you would need to pay.
As a general rule, the less money you want to pay, the more quickly you should offer to pay it. For example, if you offered $1,000, you might want to pay it immediately whereas if you offered $5,000, you might request a year to have it paid off, for example.
You can suggest a settlement at any time. For example, you might write a letter to the attorney next week outlining your settlement offer. Or, if you prefer, you might continue to engage in the discovery process and then make an offer of settlement as the trial date approaches.
There is no "right" or "wrong" time to settle, you can do that whenever you choose.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).