Law suits require "damages" (as cbg plainly put) where there are no damages there is no suit.
Law suits require "damages" (as cbg plainly put) where there are no damages there is no suit.
You still aren't getting it.
In your case, you have no basis for a lawsuit. You do not have any legal grounds to sue them, but you are using the threat of a lawsuit to force their hand.
In the examples you gave, the District Attorney, bill collector and employer all have the authority to settle a legitimate issue with a lessor charge/amount.
J, you're basically proposing a consequence. Pretty much the same thing as the schoolyard bully tellin' the nerdy kid to 'fess up his milkmoney or you'll mash him.
The examples you cite a couple posts ago are settlements of a sort to pre-existing conditions.
Your basic premise that you keep trying to drive to legitimacy is still tantamount to extortion and/or blackmail.
The old put-a-dress-on-a-pig-concept-----it still stinks and under the fancy dress it's still a pig.
JMHO!![]()
If you legitimately have (either now, or in the future) damages from their action, then by all means bring a lawsuit and take 'em for whatever you can get. But DON'T confuse one possible issue as being a bargaining chip for some separate issue, which must be treated as such, particularly when doing so could result in criminal charges against YOU.
OK, I think I understand a bit more. However, I am not sure I agree with it, if that's the way the law is interpreted/applied. But there are probably tons of things in the law I wouldn't agree with if I knew them all.
From a laymen's perspective, I could understand it being blackmail/extortion better, if I was making the thread of a lawsuit which was totally without merit.
If I were saying, I am going to sue you for a reason I am just going to make up. That would be one thing. But if I were to phrase it more like, "Your client, by there own admission, commented a negligent act which has a strong possibility of resulting in damages. We are willing to forgive your liability right now, should damages ever result." I just don't think the second example should be considered blackmail/extortion.
But clearly I am wrong.
So a follow up, are damages subjective? They recommend in there letter that I use the credit monitoring service at least once a week to check my credit reports.
1.) This takes time out of my schedule to do this I would not have had to take if it were not for their negligent action. Probably doesn’t equate to a lot in monetary terms, but damages none the less?
2.) I now spend time worrying about my identity getting stole, again, probably not worrying enough to equal a lot in monetary damages, but wouldn't that be damages?
3.) Wouldn't it be prudent of me to have some type of identity theft insurance given the situation? If I made a request to them to purchase insurance of this type, they refused and I purchased it on my, wouldn't the purchase price be damages?
Check with your credit card companies. Most of them provide identity theft services (some as part of your standard card members services) and there are hundreds of places that will monitor your credit for you and automatically alert you to to any type of change. Sure, they might cost a handful of dollars each month - but certainly not enough to warrant the out of pocket expenses you'll incur not to mention the time, in bringing a lawsuit to recover $100 or so for the year of service.
Yeah, but wouldn't damages (even lame $100 damages) = credible lawsuit = no longer extortion/blackmail because the lawsuit now has all the elements required for a lawsuit?
Or would it still be considered extortion/blackmail because one issue has nothing to do with the other. Thus, they should be treaded as separate suits and one shouldn't have any bargaining power on the other?