a loan collection company is trying to say a check written is legal binding contract and that an account existed. The cash checker wrote their account number on line item of the check (not the issuer of the check. no other written or oral agreement exists. They did unauthorized work, billed the company, the company paid one check, then wrote them for authorization or verification of services provided. They did not have authorization, but performed the services and after the fact billed the company. The company wants money back from check ($200) they wrote by mistake, the billing company wants the balance of $3000 paid for services rendered without authorization.
Guardianship Law Attorney
I'm a little confused by your question, but I will try to answer it in general terms.
The company that performed the work may not be entitled to the exact amount that they demanded, but they probably are entited to the "reasonable value of services rendered". If not, then the company that received the work would be "unjustly enriched.".
I don't understand why the company allowed the work to be peformed if it wasn't authorized. Why didn't they stop them before the job was completed, etc.?
A check could be considered a written contract if it showed evidence of a meeting of the minds.