Just received Demand Letter ......

[piratesrevenge]

That's not quite correct. Civil is based on a preponderance of evidence ... criminal law requires proof ...

In the US you call it that, in Canada we call it a balance of probabilities (51% or greater) The meaning still remains the same.
Either way the onus is still on the plaintiff to prove to the court that what they claim meets those standards.

In criminal the standard is "Beyond a reasonable doubt."

[kutter]

Isn't that what I just said.

I guess you did ... but I'm not sure that's all that helpful ... Why force them to file suit and settle after ... instead of $3500 plus legal fees it will turn into $10,000 plus legal fees ...

I was merely pointing out that a few cases didn't end in the normal manner ... and that it might be worth his while to have a lawyer look into them to see if there is anything worth pursuing ...

[kutter]

In the US you call it that, in Canada we call it a balance of probabilities (51% or greater) The meaning still remains the same.
Either way the onus is still on the plaintiff to prove to the court that what they claim meets those standards.

In criminal the standard is "Beyond a reasonable doubt."

lol ...

let's assume I get served, and I allow it to go to court ... at which point I chose to sit there and not defend myself ... what do you think will happen ?

whether you want to believe it or not, once the complaint has been filed, the onus is on you to respond and to defend yourself ... if you don't you will lose by default ... does that sound like innocent until proven guilty ?

[piratesrevenge]

I guess you did ... but I'm not sure that's all that helpful ... Why force them to file suit and settle after ... instead of $3500 plus legal fees it will turn into $10,000 plus legal fees ...

I was merely pointing out that a few cases didn't end in the normal manner ... and that it might be worth his while to have a lawyer look into them to see if there is anything worth pursuing ...

It's rather simple really

First of all (and any lawyer will tell you this) only a fool will give in to such letter without knowing the facts.

Secondly you don't have to retain a lawyer for full services, you can retain a lawyer to communicate to the plaintiff and the lawyer can request the plaintiff provide partial disclosure PRIOR to any action getting initiated.

While they don't have to provide such, the courts do encourage it.
If an action is ultimately filed the court does consider if the parties conducted themselves in a fair and co-operative manner.
In other words if the plaintiffs refuse the request it can have a detrimental effect on any judgement they could receive.

[surfinisfun]

None of this is really necessary IMHO

Fact is, if you received a letter and you did it, along with leaving a money trail then there really isn't much sense in adding extra cost considering they most likely already have enough to prove its more reasonable than not that you are guilty.

And lets face facts.....the little guys face an uphill battle when it comes to these things.

[piratesrevenge]

lol ...

let's assume I get served, and I allow it to go to court ... at which point I chose to sit there and not defend myself ... what do you think will happen ?

whether you want to believe it or not, once the complaint has been filed, the onus is on you to respond and to defend yourself ... if you don't you will lose by default ... does that sound like innocent until proven guilty ?

You're confusing criminal and civil, "innocent until proven guilty" is criminal and you left out the most important part "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Civil cases are not a question of guilt or innocence, they are a question of liability.

Because both US and Canadian law all derives from British law the procedure is the same. The only differences is in the terminology used (ie: preponderance of the evidence in the US, Canada its balance of probabilities).

Read this for a better understanding of how both systems work.

Canada

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/08.html

US

http://www.uscourts.gov/aboutfederal-courts/types-cases/civil-cases

[piratesrevenge]

None of this is really necessary IMHO

Fact is, if you received a letter and you did it, along with leaving a money trail then there really isn't much sense in adding extra cost considering they most likely already have enough to prove its more reasonable than not that you are guilty.

And lets face facts.....the little guys face an uphill battle when it comes to these things.

You're right and soupkitchen did mention about a paypal transaction as well as statue of limitations. If the transaction is within those limits he's toast.
In Canada it's simple, 2 years is the standard for ANY civil action, the US it will vary depending on the state and what limit they set.

For argument sake he is guilty and the provider is demanding let's say $50g, by using a lawyer instead of just paying the demand, the lawyer can be used to settle at a lower amount to which they may accept.

Is it not better to pay a substantially reduced amount of say 50% compared to the full demand at the lawyers cost of a couple thousand? I'm not saying they would accept the offer but should it go to court then being an offer to settle was presented and refused is beneficial in influencing the courts decision.

[kutter]

You're confusing criminal and civil, "innocent until proven guilty" is criminal and you left out the most important part "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Civil cases are not a question of guilt or innocence, they are a question of liability.

Because both US and Canadian law all derives from British law the procedure is the same. The only differences is in the terminology used (ie: preponderance of the evidence in the US, Canada its balance of probabilities).

Read this for a better understanding of how both systems work.

Canada

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/08.html

US

http://www.uscourts.gov/aboutfederal-courts/types-cases/civil-cases

lol ... then why did you say:

The onus is on them to prove your guilt not you proving your innocence.

that statement is absolutely false regardless... the onus is on you to respond in an appropriate manner and to defend yourself ... you need to show that the complaint is false ... otherwise you will be found liable ...

it's funny how after doing a bit of reading you know enough to use the word liable but your first post, which pertained to a civil suit, you used the word guilt

lol ... you twist and dance almost as good as kokes

[piratesrevenge]

lol ... then why did you say:
that statement is absolutely false regardless... the onus is on you to respond in an appropriate manner and to defend yourself ... you need to show that the complaint is false ... otherwise you will be found liable ...
it's funny how after doing a bit of reading you know enough to use the word liable but your first post, which pertained to a civil suit, you used the word guilt
lol ... you twist and dance almost as good as kokes

I should ask the same of you. How is it in your second post (#14) directed to me you stated;

That's not quite correct. Civil is based on a preponderance of evidence ... criminal law requires proof ...

And did I not clarify the differences in terminology in post #16?

In the US you call it that, in Canada we call it a balance of probabilities (51% or greater) The meaning still remains the same.
Either way the onus is still on the plaintiff to prove to the court that what they claim meets those standards.

In criminal the standard is "Beyond a reasonable doubt."

Did you disagree with that? NO.

Then why would you pose the question…

does that sound like innocent until proven guilty ?

Why would you use a term that pertains to a criminal?

Didn't you just say...

That's not quite correct. Civil is based on a preponderance of evidence ... criminal law requires proof ...

So if preponderance means the same as "balance of probabilities" and criminal law requires proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" and this being a discussion about civil litigation, then why did you say...

does that sound like innocent until proven guilty ?

And now you question me on my choice of words when you yourself are equally “twisting” your own words by saying..

otherwise you will be found liable ...

What happened to the “innocent until proven guilty” element?

I don't see any post where you disagreed with...

Civil cases are not a question of guilt or innocence, they are a question of liability.

Sounds rather hypocritical, don’t you think?

[kutter]

I should ask the same of you. How is it in your second post (#14) directed to me you stated;



And did I not clarify the differences in terminology in post #16?



Did you disagree with that? NO.

Then why would you pose the question…



Why would you use a term that pertains to a criminal?

Didn't you just say...



So if preponderance means the same as "balance of probabilities" and criminal law requires proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" and this being a discussion about civil litigation, then why did you say...




And now you question me on my choice of words when you yourself are equally “twisting” your own words by saying..



What happened to the “innocent until proven guilty” element?

I don't see any post where you disagreed with...




Sounds rather hypocritical, don’t you think?

not really, there's no twisting ... I just used whatever words you decided to go with ... they are essentially the same ...

you can argue semantics all you wish, it was you that introduced the idea of guilt and innocence ... I merely responded to it ...

then you claimed that it didn't apply because it was a civil case ... that's where you are spinning ...

I don't care if you want to get into semantics or not ...

all of a sudden you decided it wasn't appropriate to use the word guilt so I followed suit and used the word liable ...

what's so hard to understand about that

[ranger]

If they provided you proof that you received something to receive programing from someone and you paid a person for same, you should not dismiss the letter ..... ....best wishes ...

[piratesrevenge]

So let me get this straight then.
First you claim you concurred with what I said.
Then as the discussion became more involved you decided to dispute what I was saying.
Now after being called out on the very accusation you accuse me of, you use the defense of semantics.

I don't think you had any intent of carrying on a valid discussion at all, you're intent was to look superior which is evident in your initial comment (#13) to which I pointed out in (#15).

Funny how you can post a initial comment in a attempt to correct me, yet you conduce with the construct of my comment, only to diverge from it and accuse me of manipulation.

Actions speak louder than words my friend, and you can agree with it or not, but as far as I am concerned you are a hypocrite and I will have nothing more to say on the matter.

[kutter]

So let me get this straight then.
First you claim you concurred with what I said.
Then as the discussion became more involved you decided to dispute what I was saying.
Now after being called out on the very accusation you accuse me of, you use the defense of semantics.

I don't think you had any intent of carrying on a valid discussion at all, you're intent was to look superior which is evident in your initial comment (#13) to which I pointed out in (#15).

Funny how you can post a initial comment in a attempt to correct me, yet you conduce with the construct of my comment, only to diverge from it and accuse me of manipulation.

Actions speak louder than words my friend, and you can agree with it or not, but as far as I am concerned you are a hypocrite and I will have nothing more to say on the matter.

lol ... spin it how you want ...

the fact is, you have to respond to the complaint and you have to defend yourself or you will be found liable or guilty if you prefer ...

the onus is on you to show that the complaint is false ... plain and simple

[soupkitchen]

Hey Pirate & kutter, I don't mean to for you guys to argue about this......I apologize. And one page of the letter show the PP transaction but it was for a fee - nothing was discussed for what but they will ASSUME. The transaction date was early May 2012, hoping to find statute of limitations for this.......once again sorry for stirring the pot.....

[Wrench]

Personally I would ignore it.