Skip to main content
index page Response...(Hilarious!)

Submitted by mcage on Tue, 07/21/2009 - 09:38
Posts: 24

I've seen different variations of this letter on the forum before, but I think they must have changed it a little...
Centro Colon, 8 avo piso, Oficina 8-4
San Jose, Costa Rica
Phone: 888-269-2303

July 21, 2009

Dear Ms. Cage,
In acknowledgment to the letter we received by email, on 07/17/09, we would like to clarify the issue pertaining to the transaction you originated with our organization.
In regards to contract venue, you were required to consent to “avail yourself to Costa Rican law” which you did willingly and unsolicited. Had you not agreed to that you would not have received the advance.

Specifically, the contract states:
"GOVERNING LAW: Both this agreement and the application is considered to be executed at our offices in San Jose, Costa Rica, and this transaction and agreement with us shall be governed by, construed, and enforced solely in accordance with the internal laws of Costa Rica."

In addition, not only did you avail yourself to Costa Rican law and agreed to be governed by it, independent US case law also supports contract venue, even had you not agreed in advance to such venue, which you did. Jurisdiction over commercial activities had been proven to be based on a "sliding scale" determined by where the preponderance of activity has occurred. You are dealing with an unsolicited transaction to a Costa Rican company with servers, offices, employees, and all other important elements of the transaction taking place there, including contract venue rather than your state of California­­­­­­­­­­­­where nothing has taken place. Please refer to the case of Zippo Manufacturing Company vs. Zippo dot com, Inc. 952F Supp 1119,1124 (W.D. Pa. 1997).

Furthermore, specific contract venue law even provides more clear-cut evidence pertaining to the controlling venue for a contract. The formal validity of a contract is to be determined by the "lex loci celebrationis" which is the law of the place where a contract is made. The Hogue-Kellog principle applies that a contract is deemed to be executed where the final act is done which is necessary to make it binding. See Hogue-Kellog Co. Inc., v G.L. Webster Canning Co., Inc. 22 F3rd 384, 385 (4th Cir.1927). This transaction was not binding until reviewed and approved by, once we received all information from you to make a decision to enter into the agreement. Hence, the final act to make the transaction binding was in our jurisdiction, Costa Rica, not yours.

Lastly, any comment about specific interest rate caps based on your state would not apply anyway since this was not a loan in the first place. You engaged in a check advance agreement with us, not a loan. There are important differences which are a benefit to you and should be clarified. You were charged a fee per $100 dollars advanced. Based on the fact that it is a fee and not interest there is no "accrue" element to this transaction. When you defaulted you were not charged more money based on the time the advance is still outstanding (beyond your initial late fee and NSF fee, if applicable). In addition, the second important function differentiating this transaction as a fee instead of interest is there is no compounding. Any unpaid fees under an interest scenario would have a compounding component where any unpaid charges would be included in the "interest" calculation and added to the unpaid balance for purposes of determining the total amount owed. This is an important difference since there is no compounding of "interest" on any unpaid balances with our transaction. As such, usury would not govern this transaction since it is a fee. This principle is no different than when your bank charges you an overdraft fee to cover a check where there are not enough funds in the account to cover the check. You were advanced funds based on your next check from your employer, so whether that was 5 days away or 20, the fee is the same. There was no interest charged and laws governing interest are not applicable.

Hopefully, instead of trying to change the rules that governed the transaction after you received your advance from us because it suits you, you will honor what you already agreed to pay whether you paid attention or not. You need to satisfy your obligation in full, in order to avoid further collection activities and penalties. Your threats have been sent to legal counsel for review, and depending on your further actions, they will determine your accountability and how they will proceed against you and your account.

Please govern yourself accordingly.

Angela Smith

Any suggestions on how I should respond to this bull malarky?! :lol:

Hmmm, if I were sent the same letter, after I stopped laughing, this would be in my response:


The Hogue-Kellog principle applies that a contract is deemed to be executed where the final act is done which is necessary to make it binding.

Nice try. First of all, G.L. Canning Co. was located in Virgina , i.e. IN THE UNITED STATES and Hogue-Kellog was located in Ventura, CA - again, IN THE UNITED STATES! Although I couldn't find the Hogue-Kellog case, Bellagio Insurance, Ltd. v. Digital Broadcast Corporation refers to it because DBC used this as a defense:[quote]Footnote 1: Bellagio is a British Virgin Islands corporation with its principal place of business in Nevada. DBC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey.[/quote] Since it's principal place of business is in THE UNITED STATES, it was not a proper defense in this case.

Tchacosh Company, Ltd v. Rockwell Int'l Corp. says:
Even though Tchacosh Company was in Iran, Rockwell Co. signed the agreements IN IRAN, **NOT** in the United States!

So, what's all this chatter about Costa Rica law?

Again, *if* you got the loan whilst visiting Costa Rica, then it is a whole different enchilada. If they operate a business within the Territory of the United States they MUST follow US Federal Law, or State laws if they are different or more comprehensive. If they don't like that, they need to stop operating within the Territories of the United States.

You engaged in a check advance agreement with us, not a loan
Wow, talk about semantic quibbling!

It is a LOAN, with the check offered as a SECURITY for that loan. Oops! Bzzzt. Try again. Thanks for playing.

Zippo Mfr. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. is a bad case to bring up. Firstly, "[t]his is an Internet domain name dispute." (Para. 1) Secondly, BOTH OF THEM ARE U.S. COMPANIES. Oops! Bzzzt. Try again. Thanks for playing.

Hey, at least they are trying to sound intelligent! Two points! :D

Do I really need to continue? Skewer them!

Submitted by Chrys Henderson on Wed, 07/22/2009 - 03:36

Chrys Henderson

( Posts: 2538 | Credits: ) are a GENIUS!!!

I can't tell you how long I spent (after I stopped laughing) trying to research and gather info to use against this letter...THANK YOU THANK YOU!! I will definitely be sending a very intelligent and knowledgeable repsponse to them today...thanks to you! :wink:

Submitted by mcage on Wed, 07/22/2009 - 08:20


( Posts: 24 | Credits: )


The formal validity of a contract is to be determined by the "lex loci celebrationis"


In regards to contract venue, you were required to consent to ???avail yourself to Costa Rican law???

So does this mean when you got the loan you also renounced your U.S. citizenship. What morons, I would rip them apart in a reply to this..LOL :lol:

Submitted by Cool_Abyss on Thu, 07/23/2009 - 10:50


( Posts: 2936 | Credits: )

LOL, I would definately tear them a new one--and after that, since you live in California, I would print out a copy of this email and send this to our friends at the Dept. of Corporations and Jerry Brown's (our Attorney General) office. I'm sure they would love to add these shysters to the list of PDL's banned in California!
What total morons....

Submitted by kscornell on Thu, 07/23/2009 - 17:52


( Posts: 4407 | Credits: )

Add new comment

Restricted HTML

  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.