Find out the Statute of Limitations in your state - usually no more than 6 years - and if beyond that time, they have no right to sue you.

IDidIt2 said:By signing the bill without notations you are indicating the shipment arrived in good condition and the merchant and shipper are no longer liable.

Again.... unless I just marked the receipt as damaged without inspecting everything there was no way I could inspect all 50 boxes. I found that even a couple of boxes that looked fine, had broken pieces inside. I am not saying that I didn't screw up. I just didn't think this idiot merchant would give me such an issue over something I felt was so small.

But regardless. I want to thank everyone for the green.

Somebody asked why it took the merchant 18 months to go after me? The merchant probably went through their books and made up a laundry list of clients that never paid. They probably hired this DC to go after all the delinquents from the past year or so at once. That's my take on why it took so long. I don't think the merchant "sold" this debt to the DC since it appeared the DC was still very much in contact with this merchant. The DC was probably just taking a cut of whatever monies they received.

Also... I just want to make it clear that the reason why I posted this thread was not really the story about the merchant, but more so the story about the debt collector and how the DC screwed up.

I only included the background about the merchant just so you guys know what was going on. I don't mind discussing and debating the issue regarding the merchant, but I don't want the overall point to be forgotten.

The main point of this thread was to show you guys that it is possible to go after an annoying debt collector and PRO-FIT on their stupidity.

codename47 said:Does the TCPA apply to debt collectors? Ie. are debt collectors telemarketers? Just curious OP, why not ask for the 1k for each violation? I count at least 4-5k there, easy.

TCPA was written for telemarketers, but certain provisions apply to everyone and anyone. If you spoof your number, you violate, no matter what. If you use an auto-dialer and you call a cell phone, you violate, no matter what.

The FDCPA has been deemed to be 1k per SUIT for statutory damages. If you have actual damages, then you can recover whatever you can prove there. If you have multiple defendants in a FDCPA case, you can get 1k from each. You can ask, and it has happened a few times, but be prepared for 1k per suit.

Discover has called my cell phone 3 times in the past week to upgrade me to some business card. I am pretty sure they are auto-dialing, do I have a case. I do have a personal card with them, but I don't know how they got my cell number.

Update

Looks like I can. Here is the law TCPA

Statute follows but I think I may have a case.

b) Restrictions on use of automated telephone equipment

(1) Prohibitions

It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States or
any person outside the United States if the recipient is within
the United States--
(A) to make any call (other than a call made for emergency
purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called
party) using any automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice--
(i) to any emergency telephone line (including any
``911'' line and any emergency line of a hospital, medical
physician or service office, health care facility, poison
control center, or fire protection or law enforcement
agency);
(ii) to the telephone line of any guest room or patient
room of a hospital, health care facility, elderly home, or
similar establishment; or
(iii) to any telephone number assigned to a paging
service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile
radio service, or other radio common carrier service, or any
service for which the called party is charged for the call;
(B) to initiate any telephone call to any residential
telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to
deliver a message without the prior express consent of the
called party, unless the call is initiated for emergency
purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission under
paragraph (2)(B);

Edit: Nevermind

DjPiLL, I'm giving you green just for attending the codename47 school of law

The FDCPA looks at the PURPOSE for the underlying debt, not the means of purchase. If you buy flooring for your house, it probably falls under family, personal, and household use, which is what consumer debt is defined as.

If you buy flooring for 10 homes on that you are building in a subdivision, it probably isn't going to cut it.

dcg9381 said:No, not a troll. IF the debt was sold, I've got no issue with the FDCPA in regard to that claim.

I take issue with claiming 100% loss on 10% of damaged material, that's all.

Look up FBA in this case. OP never received the merchandise he ordered as described (50 cartons of perfect condition flooring). Until he received all 50 cartons, merchant hasn't delivered the product they billed OP for.

If you purchased a digital camera online and after trying it noticed the flash was not working (something you won't notice upon taking receipt of camera but only after you try it out) and merchant didn't want to fully refund/exchange for a 100% working camera, what would you do? Dispute 10% of the charge because only that much is not working and you can still take pictures in bright daylight? Of course not. You'll dispute the whole charge until they send you a fully functional camera.

As merchant, they have agreements with manufacturer to cover for damaged items. And they might take a small loss or no profit on the camera but they don't try to screw the customer because they didn't try out the flash in front of UPS guy delivering it. Or if they do and get in trouble doing it and end up taking a bigger loss, it's their own fault, not the customer's.

In my own business (translations), I've had bad customers trying all kinda of stunts to get out of paying me full amount agreed upon. Some times, issues were genuine and neither my or the customer's fault. In cases of changes to contract, I try to accomodate them as I can. In cases like word count dispute, late delivery fee due to fault of the customer, claim of wrong file/page setup format, etc. you can document that you fulfilled your part of the contract as agreed on. In some other cases, like disputes on quality after proofing, allegation of commitment to changes over phone, etc. you can't do much about it. So I take a small loss and write the customer in my black book (quote more next time or stop doing business). Vast majority of customers are honest though, and it usually pays off in long run to give customers benefit of doubt even when you're pretty sure they're the ones at fault as it'll bring you repeat business from many.

So merchant in OP's case, should have given OP the benefit of doubt and chalked it to customer service to ensure customer is happy and might recommend them to others or do more business with them in the future. Their margin was probably way higher than the 5% replacement cost. In stead, they chose to hardball it and lost. That's just poor business operation. They only deserved to be shafted for it if you ask me.

So you essentially stole the flooring by not paying for the good material that you did receive and are now gloating about how you were able to sue them for bad debt collection on a debt that you partially owed. I agree their methods were bad but you are also a deadbeat and a thief.
I guess that's one way of looking at it. Another way is that first of all, he sued the debt collector, not the merchant. He didn't steal anything, he accepted the other sides settlement offer. He didn't owe any debt until the merchant produced the goods that were paid for.

I suggest a poll:

(A) The OP is a thief.
(B) Those who call the OP a thief are jealous.

If you agree with (A), give me RED.
If you agree with (B), give me GREEN.

Then everyone would see.