Look, there is no such thing as a traditional written contract for CCs. That's silly.
The adhesion contract does not even contain specific terms and conditions. And some terms and conditions can change without signature altogether. The whole notion that somehow the CC company is remiss in not having the debtor sign the adhesion contract is nonsense.
There are going to be signatures on credit applications, merchant receipts, balance transfer checks, and other places. The composite document theory cited by the AG permits those signatures to satisfy the signature requirement for a written contract; and also permits the terms and conditions to be spread out over time and many documents. The specific terms and conditions simply do not have to be contained within the four corners of a seminal contract signed by the debtor.
The AG opinion was solicited by a member of the VA legislature, and that gives the court the authority to rely on the opinion.
While not literally unique, it was cherry picking to cite a case where an OC somehow cannot produce even one signature. Then, it's a lot of nerve to abstract from that case that CCs don't involve debtor signatures, and therefore only the 3 y SOL applies.
This is not settled law, and sometimes a CC defendant might convince the judge to apply the 3 y SOL. But it can and does go the other way too. Suggesting to newbies actually facing a lawsuit that they can smugly assume the 3 y SOL is really doing a disservice.
The AG's reference to receipts, an application, etc. that may show a signature is not the "composite document theory". The term has been applied in lawsuits where all relevant documents were offered in order to determine the existence of security agreements. Here is how the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals described it:
"When the parties have neglected to sign a separate security agreement, it would appear that the better and more practiced view is to look at the transaction as a whole in order to determine if there is a writing, or writings, signed by the debtor describing the collateral which demonstrates an intent to create a security interest in collateral." That has nothing to do with proving whether a contract is written or unwritten for the purpose of the SOL. The VA statute says that a contract must be "in writing and signed...". It does not say "in writing but doesn't have to be signed as long as something else is signed".
NO ONE has suggested that a newbie can "smugly assume" the 3-year SOL.
Recent Posts