I am being sued by a credit card company that has not sold the debt. I am in California. I had a verbal agreement with them in 2010 and they might have a contract I signed in 2002. Which agreement will be most valid in the courts eyes. Thanks for your help.
There isn't enough information in your post regarding your 2010 verbal agreement. Did that verbal agreement replace or alter the terms of the 2002 written agreement ( if there was such a written agreement)? Much will depend upon the allegations of the complaint. What does the credit card company allege was the agreement, or does the complaint merely allege common counts?
Frank W. Chen has been licensed to practice law in California since 1988. The information presented here is general in nature and is not intended, nor should be construed, as legal advice for a particular case. This Avvo.com posting does not create any attorney-client relationship with the author. For specific advice about your particular situation, please consult with your own attorney.
12 lawyers agree
There's not enough information in your post for anyone on this forum to give you an informed response. The answer will depend largely on the content of both agreements, and if/how each affected the other. For example, what did the 2002 agreement say, and was it amended by the 2010 agreement? Depending on the answers to these questions, it could be that one, both, or neither of the agreements are valid.
The information presented here is general in nature and is not intended, and should not be construed, as legal advice for a particular case. This posting does not create any attorney-client relationship with the author, and Pham Law Group does not represent you as your attorneys until retained by a written retainer agreement signed by both parties.
8 lawyers agree
I agree with the other attorneys responses.
Legal disclaimer:This message does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Any statements are made for general informational purposes and do not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client privilege is created by this communication. Attorney is licensed in California only.
6 lawyers agree
No way they will sue you on an oral agreement. Would be too risky and cost too much. My bet is the written agreement.
NOTE: The use of the Internet for communications with the firm or this attorney will not establish an attorney-client relationship and messages containing confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent.
4 lawyers agree