Can consumers use trusts to protect themselves from losing their deposit — if, after consumers pay deposit, a company goes bankrupt? Many companies (call them D for Defendant) require monetary deposits from consumers (C for Claimants), before D undertakes time and effort to order the product. C is an unsecured creditor, and a layman ignorant on trusts law. But after C pays their deposit, if D goes bankrupt, then C can't recoup their money — because D has little to no assets. Or C ranks so far behind D's secured creditors that C won't be restituted. Or the deposit money is too teensy to warrant paying fees to file a claim, even in Small Claims Court! How could C have protected and preserved C's deposit money? Could C have instructed D to hold the deposit money on trust, so that C has a proprietary interest or equitable title to the deposit money (Which term is correct here?)? This feels simple. All C needs to do is to write the following in the contract Company, as trustee, holds customer's deposit money on fixed revocable trust, for the benefit of the customer. But if every one of D's creditors loaned money to D on trust, then all of D's previous creditors — all beneficiaries of their separate loan monies to D — have priority over C. C ranks behind all of D's previous creditors. Then even if D holds C's deposit on trust, C's proprietary interest or equitable title to C's deposit money would be useless...??? Please don't just answer that D shouldn't buy from companies that require down payments — this is impractical. This fact pattern has happened 3 times in my family. In my grandpa's case (call him G), D was a medical equipment company. For my aunt A, D = a mattress company. For my mom M, D = a furniture company.
united-states Business Practices There are contracts where consumer deposits are required to be held in trust, requirements that mostly, but not entirely, arise under state law in the U.S. For example, many states require that landlords hold security deposits for residential rental properties in separate trust accounts, and almost all U.S. jurisdictions require that attorneys hold prepayment for legal services in trust for the consumer until the fees are earned. As another example, in Colorado, if a property owner make a payment to a general contractor for work on real property such as building or renovating a building, the general contractor is required to hold those funds in trust and not make payments to itself from those funds, until all subcontractors and material suppliers on the job have been paid in full and have no lien claims. In the same vein, many construction contracts, especially for governments acting as consumers, require contractors to be &quot;bonded and insured&quot; meaning that a third-party bond company is responsible for paying claims against the bonded company even if the bonded company is insolvent. It also isn't unusual in complex commercial transactions between sophisticated big businesses, for the parties to negotiate that certain funds related to a transaction be held in a bankruptcy remote trust, or that the work be done by a &quot;bankruptcy remote entity.&quot; But this is rarely the case when large numbers of consumers enter into small transactions with a big business. As @DaleM rightly notes, a business in a position to impose a contract of adhesion on consumers on a take it or leave it basis, can get away with it, and one simply might want to be wary about doing business with financially insecure businesses, if possible, even though financially secure businesses may charge more. A common theme is that consumers (maybe business to business or government to business) insist on trust-like or bond-like or insurance-like or collateral-like protections for deposits in transactions where the loss suffered if the security deposit was lost would be a major economic blow to the consumer in light of the consumer's overall financial situation. In contrast, these protections are foregone when the amount of a security deposit is small enough to be merely a survivable nuisance that may happen some small percentage of the time that the consumer engages in such transactions. This reflects an economic and policy judgment that the trouble of treating small consumer deposits as if they were trust funds isn't worth the transaction cost trouble of doing so. Priorities Under U.S. Bankruptcy Law In part to address the imbalance of power in this situation, claims to recover consumer deposits for unperformed goods or services owed by the debtor do have a priority under U.S. bankruptcy laws relative to general unsecured creditors of up to $1,800 per consumer. Specifically, these are seventh priority claims in bankruptcy pursuant to 11 U.S.C. ¶ 507(a)(7). They are behind claims secured by collateral to the extent of the value of the collateral (priority zero, so to speak), priority one alimony and child support claims, priority two costs of administering the estate, and priority three to six claims which include several kinds of claims that amount to up to about $20,000 of unpaid wages and benefits per employee and about $4,000 of unpaid amounts owed to farmers per farm for their crops. But security deposit claims are ahead of a variety of tax claims, FDIC claims, DUI personal injury claims, and general unsecured creditor claims. They are also ahead of the claims of stockholders. As a practical matter, when you are doing business with a business entity rather than a sole proprietor, there are no child support or alimony claims, and most businesses that have lots of transactions with retail consumers don't buy crops directly from farmers, so consumer deposit claims actually have a very high priority in bankruptcy and are usually repaid in full except in the very most catastrophic business collapses under U.S. law. So, while it isn't quite as good as holding those funds in trust, the bankruptcy priority comes close from the perspective of providing a practical benefit to every day small consumers doing business with large firms that go bankrupt. Canada Compared Superficially, at least, it appears that Canada does not have a similar priority for consumer security deposit claims in bankruptcy, although it could be that this arises in some back door manner invisible to practitioners unfamiliar with it under court interpretations of Section 70 of the Canadian Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) which governs creditor priorities in bankruptcy in Canada. For example, the consumers may have an implied in law security interest in those funds of which I am not aware. It may also be that there are specific kinds of transaction in which deposits do have to be held in trust, just as there are in the U.S., even if that isn't true as a general rule. Finally, if one pays by credit card, it is often possible to reverse a charge like this one, pushing the risk of bankruptcy loss from the consumer buying with a credit card to the bank issuing the credit card, particularly if action is taken promptly.
In the US, when a person has unpaid debts and dies, those debts are to be paid from any assets of the estate (as in, any assets). The executor has the responsibility to use those assets to pay the debts. Presumably the executor did that, and there are no co-signed accounts or anything like that, so your mother isn't responsible for these debts in some obscure way. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act has a provision that you can tell a collection agency to stop communicating with you, and they must then stop communicating with you except to say they are stopping attempts to collect, to indicate possible remedies (i.e. lawsuits), or notify of an actual remedy (they have actually filed suit). Since they are no longer allowed to discuss anything with you once you give them the go-away notice, one should probably hire an attorney to exercise the nuclear option. You can also request proof that you owe the money: they are suppose to notify you of the right to dispute the debt with 5 days of first contact, which gives you 30 days to dispute the debt. Persuading a debt collector that they are pursuing the wrong person is probably easier than persuading a jury in a lawsuit.
According to the US Courts website, not all debts need to be paid in full in Chapter 13 proceedings: The plan need not pay unsecured claims in full as long it provides that the debtor will pay all projected "disposable income" over an "applicable commitment period," and as long as unsecured creditors receive at least as much under the plan as they would receive if the debtor's assets were liquidated under chapter 7. 11 U.S.C. § 1325. If they can't pay even this reduced amount, then they probably don't belong in Chapter 13. If the court declines to confirm the plan, the debtor may file a modified plan. 11 U.S.C. § 1323. The debtor may also convert the case to a liquidation case under chapter 7.
When you breach a contract, you can get sued in local court, and if you don't show up to defend yourself, default judgment will be entered against you. Then the aggrieved party will have to collect, but the court in Washington (to invent a jurisdiction) can't enforce an order against a person in Norway (to invent another jurisdiction). So the aggrieved party would need to take enforcement of the judgment to the Norwegian courts. In the actual case of Norway, this is fairly simple, you just call an attorney in Norway to do the paperwork. It might be harder if the other jurisdiction is Belarus. If you return to the US, even if there is a money judgment against you for the rent owed, you will not be arrested for that debt. Depending on the state (about half of the states), you might be arrested for failing to comply with a court order to pay the debt. The difference lies in refusing to comply with a court order, versus simply having a debt. The State Department conveniently lists the reasons for denying a visa. Owing money or having an uncollected judgment against you is not one of the possible reasons, in fact even having been ordered by a court to pay, ignoring the order, and the court issuing an arrest warrant does not make you inadmissible.
are they allowed to immediately try to recover the debt or must they go to court first? They can try to recover the debt, either directly or through a debt collection agency. They do not have to go to court first; courts are for the resolution of a dispute and right now there isn't one. If the consumer disputes the debt (which they should do in writing) then the debt is held in abeyance until the dispute is resolved. While in this state debt collection must stop and the debt must be noted as disputed on any credit agency checks. Dispute resolution may be through negotiation, litigation, mediation, arbitration or a statutory mechanism (e.g. involving a government agency or ombudsman if applicable). If the supplier chooses litigation then they must go to the court and summons the consumer; stating the basis of their claim. The consumer is then entitled to mount a defence.
While I am a U.S. attorney, the U.K. and U.S. are essentially the same on these issue in practice: "reasonable wear and tear" is a classic issue of fact to be decided by the judge (unlike the U.S. there are never juries in U.K. landlord-tenant disputes) based upon the evidence presented to him and his or her good judgment if the case goes to court. There won't be a lot of case law that is specific enough to provide guidance in your particular case (if any) because cases like these aren't worth appealing and creating case law on and because the law intentionally vests judges with great discretion on these issues and only intervenes in appellate decisions when a judge is deeply out of line. The legal definition of "reasonable wear and tear" is basically vacuous and don't provide much meaningful guidance. I know you are joking, but no, do not set it on fire. You will find yourself incarcerated for arson, with a felony criminal record and a restitution judgment in the amount of the damages and a fine and court costs as well, and your credit record will be screwed and no one will rent to you ever again if they find out by doing a cursory background check. Your mum probably won't even invite you to Christmas dinner this year. If they charge your security deposit and you don't think you owe it, you would have to sue them for a return of the part of your security deposit you don't owe, knowing that you face a risk of paying their legal fees if you lose, but will get your fees if you hire a lawyer and win (caveat: there are more nuances to fee shifting in the U.K. courts than I spell out here which are rather technical). If they say you owe more than your security deposit and you don't pay, they can sue you for the balance, knowing that they face a risk of paying your legal fees if they lose, but will get their fees if they win. In practice, it doesn't really make economic sense for either party to hire an attorney because the amount of the fees is so high relative to the amount of money at stake. The security deposit is 2-4 hours of legal time, and the amount claimed is maybe 7-14 hours of legal time, neither of which is sufficient to address the respective issues economically in a fully litigated hearing. Short of going to court, you can provide them documentation and your video to show that you are right and to discourage them from docking your security deposit (in full, anyway) or suing you, ideally A.S.A.P. before they are too committed to taking legal action. You could also propose a compromise and see if you can get them to agree to it with neither party facing the risk of going to court.
You are deeply confused, probably by the blogs of a conspiracy theorist (perhaps discussing the Sovereign Citizen Movement mentioned in the comments), whom it would be helpful for you to reference. In fact, people with and without lawyers claim common law rights in the ordinary courts of the UK every day, in the lion's share of civil lawsuits. For example: There is a common law right to sue for damages when someone breaches a contract by not paying a bill that they owe. A defendant, meanwhile, has a common law right to defend against such a suit on grounds, for example, that the debt has been paid or that the debt is not owed because there was no agreement to pay in the first place. The substantive right of an owner of real property to evict a tenant who breaches a lease arises at common law, even though statutes spell out the process for enforcing that right. Furthermore, the way that ownership of real property is established (i.e. through a chain of title involving purchases by deeds) likewise arises at common law. The defendant meanwhile has a common law defense to a claim for rent for the remainder of the period in a lease after an eviction for failure of the landlord to mitigate damages if the landlord does not make a reasonable effort to find a new tenant. The right to sue someone who negligently caused an accident that injured you is a common law right.
The part of the statute (which is part of an article of the Uniform Commercial Code model language applicable to the sale of goods) that you are discussing reads as follows: 1) A purchaser of goods acquires all title which his transferor had or had power to transfer except that a purchaser of a limited interest acquires rights only to the extent of the interest purchased. A person with voidable title has power to transfer a good title to a good faith purchaser for value. When goods have been delivered under a transaction of purchase the purchaser has such power even though (a) the transferor was deceived as to the identity of the purchaser, or (b) the delivery was in exchange for a check which is later dishonored, or (c) it was agreed that the transaction was to be a "cash sale", or (d) the delivery was procured through fraud punishable as larcenous under the criminal law. I have put the critical language of (1)(c) for the purpose of understanding what they are talking about when they are talking about "cash sales" in bold. You are asking: Please explain it to me and tell me what a "cash sale" has to do with voidable title. Doesn't cash sale just mean you are paying cash for something? That sounds perfectly innocent to me. Items (1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(c) and (1)(d) involve circumstances which are examples of transactions in which a buyer of goods obtains voidable title from the seller. This means that the sale can be undone if the seller acts promptly enough, but the sale can't be undone if the buyer in turn sells the goods to a good faith purchaser for value (i.e. someone who pays a meaningful price for the goods without knowledge that the seller only has voidable title). If the goods have been sold to a good faith purchaser for value, however, then the seller who could otherwise undo the sale entirely can now only sue the buyer for damages (usually the agreed purchase price, or fair market value if no purchase price had been agreed upon yet). When it says in (1)(c) that "it was agreed that the transaction was to be a "cash sale"," what the statute is describing is a transaction where the original deal was that you will deliver goods to me with the understanding that I will pay you for the goods in full with currency or other "good funds" (like a wire transfer), roughly contemporaneously. But, what actually happens is that you deliver the goods to me and instead of promptly paying you the cash you are owed for the goods, I don't actually pay you anything. This could happen because I was trying to cheat you and get something for nothing, in which case I would have also committed fraud which also falls under (1)(d). More innocently, suppose that I run a small grocery store and you run a dairy that delivers milk for resale to my grocery store every morning at 5 a.m. before banks open, in time for the morning rush of innocent customers milk to put in their coffee on their way to work, before the banks open, and then I go to the bank when it opens every day at 9 a.m. and take out some cash and hand it over to your money collector, when your money collector stops buy my grocery store around lunch time. But, today, I was stunned to discover that all of the money in my bank account had been frozen due to a garnishment on a money judgment against me that I hadn't been aware of because the process server who was supposed to give me notice of the lawsuit against me instead threw the court papers in the sewer and lied on the return of service saying that he'd delivered the court papers to me, so that unbeknownst to me, a default judgment was entered against me. The sale would be voidable in both cases, the one where I was trying to cheat you while telling you that it would be a "cash sale" and the one where I innocently found out that I didn't have the money to pay you that I had no reasons to think that I wouldn't have available to me. And, in each situation, if my grocery store sold half the milk that was delivered to me in the morning rush, those sales would be valid and irreversible, even though I completely stiffed the dairy owner and there was a total failure of consideration in what was supposed to have been a cash sale transaction. But, the dairy owner would have a right, when he found out that he wasn't getting paid at noon and the sale turned out to have been a voidable one, to take back all the milk that hadn't been sold to my customers yet in the hope that he could sell it to someone else who was actually willing and able to pay for it instead. In general, under circumstances when a sale is voidable, if I haven't resold the goods to a good faith purchaser for value, then you can legally force me to return the goods and have the sale invalidated. But, if I have sold the goods to somebody else for a more than nominal price, and the person who bought the goods from me doesn't know that I cheated you by not paying for the goods, then you can't undo my sale of the goods that I didn't pay for to the good faith purchaser for value. Situation (1)(c) is very similar to situation (1)(b), in which you give me the goods and I give you are personal check for the purchase price, but the check is then dishonored by the bank (something that could been my intentional plan to cheat you, but which could also have been my failure to keep track of the balance in my bank account as I wrote checks). Both of these situations involve broken promises which may or may not have been made with no intent to honor those promises in the first place. Situations (1)(a) and (1)(d), in contrast, involve out and out fraud and deceit, but not "fraud in the factum". In other words, what (1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(c) and (1)(d) all have in common is that the goods were voluntarily delivered by you to me, even though your voluntary delivery was obtained by improper means such a deceit regarding who is buying the goods. ("Fraud in the factum", which is also void, involves situations when, for example, I ask you for you to sign what I tell you is a birthday card, when what I have actually done is have you sign a letter authorizing your delivery man to deliver lots of goods to me, and then I use that letter to have goods delivered to me.) In case (1)(a) this would often be a sale on credit or open account to someone you believe to have good credit but who is in fact someone else with bad credit. For example, you make a sale to George Shrub, thinking you will be delivering goods to George Shrub, Sr. who has good credit, but instead you are tricked into delivering the goods to George Shrub, Jr. who has multiple bankruptcies and never pays his bills on time. In case (1)(d) there are myriad possible examples. For example, I may have given you counterfeit money to get you to deliver the goods to me. Or, I may have purchased your cow in a barter exchange for beans that I told you were magic beans, but that were really just ordinary beans. But, in both (1)(a) and (1)d), as well as in (1)(b) and (1)(c), you are voluntarily delivering the good to me and then not getting what you thought you had bargained for in the deal, sometimes with evil motives and sometimes for innocent reasons, so voidable title arises. In contrast, suppose that I snuck into my stockyard one night and stole the goods from you. In that situation, you would have a right to get your goods back not only from me, but even from a good faith purchaser for value to whom I sold the stolen goods, because out and out theft that does not even involve consent procured through fraud or a broken promise, doesn't give me any title to the property, not even voidable title. Similarly, suppose that I pointed a gun at you in your shop and insisted that you deliver the goods to me or else I will kill you. Again, in that situation, you aren't giving me even voidable title to the goods, and you can sue a good faith purchaser for value from me to get the goods that I never had any colorable claim to have ever owned back. The language in the first sentence of (1) goes along with the language about voidable sales of goods in the rest of (1), because the first sentence of (1) covers situations when I may not have 100% ownership of goods that I sell to some else. For example, suppose that I have a pedigreed male dog that I have purchased the pet rights in from a breeder, while the breeder has retained the stud rights in the dog. (Yes, these transactions really happen. I've litigated them.) Under the first sentence of (1), I can sell the pet rights I have in the dog to you, but I can't sell the stud rights that I don't own to you because I don't own them. And, unless I am a pet store owner to whom the dog has been "entrusted" (and I'm not a pet shop owner), I probably can't destroy the stud rights through a sale of the dog to you when I am purporting to be selling you both the pet rights and the stud rights, even if you are a good faith purchaser for value, because I am not a merchant to whom the "entrusting" doctrine applies. So, if I sold the dog, the owner of the stud rights could still enforce those rights against the person to whom I sold the dog. Parts (2) and (3) deal with an exception to the general rule in the first sentence of (1) called "entrusting" which is quite similar to voidable title. Entrusting involves you leaving your goods with a merchant who is in the business of selling those kinds of goods. So, if I leave my nice clothes with a consignment shop or a pawn shop and the consignment shop or pawn shop sells my clothes to someone and give the buyer good title, and I can't undo that sale even if you didn't actually have my permission to sell the nice clothes that I had entrusted to the consignment store or pawn shop (e.g. perhaps they were only allowed to sell my wedding dress for a minimum price of $100, but instead sold it to someone for $30 which they didn't have permission to do, then the buyer of my wedding dress for $30 would still have good title to the wedding dress and the sale couldn't be undone). But, on the other hand, if I leave my nice clothes with an automobile parts shop or a grocery store or a stationary store, and they don't actually have my permission to sell the nice clothes that I left in their care, and then they sold my nice clothes to one of their customers, that sale made without my permission would be void and could be undone, even if their customer paid more than a nominal price for my nice clothes and had no knowledge that the merchant didn't have my permission to sell my nice clothes. This is because we don't believe that someone who buys, for example, my wedding dress from an automobile parts shop or grocery store or stationary store, can legitimately say that they really believed in good faith that the seller really had your permission to sell my wedding dress, because that is not an ordinary merchant-customer transaction for them.