Paying off a contract

Negotiation is possible only with who owns the contract. If the contract is sold, like these trucking companies like to do, you have to negotiate with the contract owner.

You can't buy your neighbor's car by going to the car dealer that sold it to them and negotiating a better deal. Same thing with loan contracts.

 

Right, but the trucking company does not have to sell it, they can keep it on their books as long as they want.

 

True. My point wasn't about suing, it was that lawyers make stupid contracts sometimes.

Ahh yes. But they were made much stricter a couple years ago because the old terms were deemed unfair. That's all I'm saying. Just because it's a "contract" in does not means it's right.

That's possible. I don't know one way or another for a fact. Do we know for a fact that every trucking company hires competent lawyers to write theirs? I don't. As for lawyers risking their ability to practice, well there are plenty of moron lawyers out there. I think we both know this. Anecdotally, I have a friend who took a major loss in a custody battle because his lawyer just said "sure" to a suggestion by the opposing party that ended up costing him full custody of his daughter. That lawyer was a moron.

I'll give that point since I don't have enough familiarization with standard trucking industry contracts. I will say however that anything, and I mean ANYTHING in a contract can be challenged for fairness. I'm not saying you will always win, simply that a challenge can always be made.

Yes and no. Look up the reasonable person doctrine.

I'll give you that too. I don't. I just know the law.

Point 1. Yes, they are, because most are fairly crafted. Most. Not all.
Point 2. Not obvious to me. Possible is an easy term. Does he make $200/week? Then yes, possible. Fair? Obviously not.

Wish I could say the same. Life happens. I won't get into my current situation because it's already well documented in other threads.

Your admitted ignorance in this situation puts you at a disadvantage. You can ALWAYS negotiate with collectors. ALWAYS.

I'm talking about one guy, not a class action. Apples and oranges. In a class action it's drawn out because it's a threat to their whole model, as you pointed out. When it's a single lawsuit, it's in their best interest to get it over with and move on. Class actions are industry changing, and in most cases, thought not mentioned in this case specifically, they're backed up by the entire trucking industry that supports these practices. A large portion of the money to fight such cases is provided by the trucking lobby not just a single company, even when a single company is the only one listed in the lawsuit. The other companies that operate the same way Swift does had a MAJOR interest in this suit.

Or at least be entertained amiright??


Ed

 

And now...a moment of silence...and deep sobbing...

 

Rather then go through all the quotes let me explain why things happen the way they do.

Trucking companies sell schooling on contracts because it makes big money for them. Huge profits with low overhead. It costs them practically nothing to let someone run around in an empty lot with an old Freightliner. A little classroom study on top of that and they collect big bucks for three weeks of nothing.

In addition, these same companies can collect government benefits for hiring these same students. That is in addition to the large profit they get from the low wage work and large margins they make on their contract loads. In fact, over say a 10 month period, the government benefits could be half the drivers wage in addition to the profit they make off of working the driver. Say $15k from the government and another $15-30k in profit off the work.

Now how does that $40K compare with that $4k student loan? It doesn't. So they write the loan contract up to make it difficult but not impossible for a driver to leave the company. Should a driver decide to leave, they set the payback amount high enough that it is discouraging and not profitable for a new driver to leave.

These loans have a high default rates; not everybody makes it in trucking. So after 20-30years of doing these shyster loans, they have a pretty good idea of what they can get away with. If there loans were onerous they would have been tested in court by now. One thing they know they can get away with is the 33% collection costs which is standard in the debt industry. They also know the can get a good return selling these debts on the market, which is what you do with fresh high default rate debt. So, what they do it jack the loan by 33% collection fee then 5-10-20% interest and sell it on the debt market at say 50-65% on the dollar and make out like bandits because it cost them practically nothing to sell training to a driver in the first place.

It is beyond crazy to suggest to a guy to default on the loan and accept a 33% collection fee, interest, and a collection fee from a third party, just so he could lower his payment from $200. Then to hire a lawyer, pay thousands for a retainer, just to sue for those collection fees and what damage they did to his credit. But this is trucking you see crazy things.

Bottom line, the trucking company does not care about the driver or how $200 payback affects him. If anything, they hope it hurts, just so he won't go work for the competition and cut them out of government benefits and profit. They want that leverage to keep the driver under their thumb. They could care less if the driver ever pays, it costs them practically nothing to train him and the will sell the debt at a tidy profit. Driver has no leverage to negotiate with the trucking company and negotiating with the collection agency will cost him. A lawyer will cost him 10 times more and I say he will loose the case even if the contract was bad and written by a bad lawyer.

 

Did you?

 

I won't answer your question with a question, no,did you?