Corporate Recoveries

I am rejecting this response because there is nothing to accept in the business's latest responseThey keep discussing the contents of the case in violation of the Confidential AgreementOnce again, I can only decline to go into those discussions in accordance with that confidential agreement, while strongly repudiating the extreme and unsubstantiated fabricationsWhat has also not been explained is: During those supposedly "limitless" phone and email conversations with me why did nobody insist that because of these apparent "developments" in the case there would need to be a modification of my initial agreement with CRI? During those supposedly "limitless" phone and email conversations with me why did nobody insist that some hitherto unspoken "limit" had been reached on the number of phone calls and emails and that this would mean a modification of my initial agreement with CRI? Note that no such modification was ever proposed let alone being mutually agreed upon and executed

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: By referring to the details of the case here, Mr C [redacted] is probably violating yet another agreementWhile I strongly repudiate the disparaging accusations of "misrepresentation" and "fraud", I will only focus on my initial collection agreement with CRIHere are the facts: 1.) The agreement has these words within it: "CRI shall provide Client with its best efforts to collect any and all judgments Client assigns to CRI for collection ..." and "call the debtor(s) to use our skills and knowledge to attempt to collect the debt without further legal action., etc." 2.) It DOES NOT state that there is a limit on the number of calls or other communication methods that will be used towards these "best efforts" 3.) I had specifically questioned MrC [redacted] before entering into this agreement if the money due back to me would be further reduced beyond the 25% fee and under what circumstancesHe responded that any additional cost to me "should not be more than $100-200" and that too only in case legal steps were needed 4.) It was only based on these assertions and the 25% fee that I chose Mr C [redacted] firm over his competitors who I was also evaluating at that time 5.) At no time did Mr C [redacted] insist that based on any revelations in the case he would need to change the terms of the agreement before proceeding with his services 6.) At no time did Mr C [redacted] insist that based on exceeding the max number of phone calls or emails he would need to change the terms of the agreement before proceeding with his services 7.) No change in the terms of this agreement was ever mutually agreed upon Sincerely, [redacted]

Re: Response to *** *** FollRevdex.com Complaint Revdex.com ID # *** Dear ***Revdex.com,: This letter is to respond to the additional complaint information we received through your office from *** ***First, Mr*** additional information does not provide any rebuttal information or facts or evidence to several key facts contained in our June 9, letter to the Revdex.comFor example, we provided information that Mr***: misrepresented he had properly served the personal guarantor, *** *** falsely misrepresented to us that he had replaced the carpet when, in fact, he had not concealed the fact he had immediately re-rented the home after the debtor vacated concealed the fact the judgment he assigned to us was defective to fraudulently induce us to accept the collection assignment at a rate lower than our standard rate The above facts are material to the underlying collection services agreement as Mr*** had with our firmMr*** cannot make misrepresentations and conceal material facts (such as the fact he lied about replacing the carpet), inflate the claim to make it look attractive, breach his duty of good faith and fair dealing which is a covenant inherent in all contracts, and then now claim that the conditionally reduced collection rate based on his misrepresentations and deception is somehow still validThat is not how the law worksContracts are voidable and/or modifiable under both tort law and equitable lawFor example, if a party to a contract commits misrepresentations or fraud and that fraud negatively impacts/damages the other party to a contract, the misrepresenting party can be held liable for the damages to the injured party due to the fraudAnd under equitable law there are also remedies such as unjust enrichment which protect a damaged party and allow additional remedy to bar the other party from being unjustly enrichedBottom line, Corporate Recoveries, Incwould not have agreed to the 25% rate Mr*** is choosing to quote out of context and in a vacuum had Mr*** not concealed the fact the default judgment was defective, the personal guarantor had not been properly served, the carpet had not been replaced, a replacement tenant moved in right after *** vacated, etcWith regard to the additional labor damages Mr*** caused us by his mispresentations, concealments, etc., Mr*** alleges there are no limits imposed in the contract as to how many times he could call our firm, email our firm, etcOnce again, and just for an example, if it requires 7-phone conversations totaling 2-hours to finally get Mr*** to confess he lied about replacing the carpet, etc., those additional time/labor/lost profit/business interruption damages are recoverableIn closing, CRI was damaged by Mr*** because of his concealments, misrpresentations, deception and bad faithThe evidence on file confirms *** made these misrpresentationsAs Mr*** ambiguously hints at the start of his additional information section, there is another agreement involved in the underlying collection transactionAll parties involved in the collection matter signed a settlement agreement stipulating to certain levels of confidentialityFor that reason, we have not provided the Revdex.com with a complete copy of the fileHowever, the evidence in the file clearly establishes *** made misrepresentations to our firm, concealed very important information from our firm, and based on this evidence, in our opinion, committed several acts of fraud

Re: Response to [redacted] Revdex.com Complaint Revdex.com ID # [redacted] Dear Revdex.com: This letter is to respond to the complaint we received through your office from [redacted]. First, Mr. [redacted] concealed the fact that he had not properly served the personal guarantor on the...

rental agreement, Ms. [redacted], in North Bend WA. Mr. [redacted] had [redacted] address and her telephone number in North Bend Washington but neither Mr. [redacted] nor his attorney ever called or sent Ms. [redacted] a copy of the summons and complaint. Therefore the judgement he (Mr. [redacted]) proclaimed to have against Ms. [redacted] was detective and unenforceable even on its face. Mr. [redacted] made material misrepresentations to me to fraudulently induce us to accept his collection assignment at a conditional lower rate. Second, Mr. [redacted] falsely misrepresented to our firm that he had replaced the carpet due to damage allegedly caused by the tenant, [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] alleged over $3.4K for the alleged carpel damage and its alleged replacement. However, after our repeated requests to Mr. [redacted] for a copy of the invoice/proof that he ever received or paid for any alleged carpet replacement, Mr. [redacted] finally admitted to us that he did not replace the carpet after the tenant, Ms. [redacted], vacated the premises and that he had falsely misrepresented to his Florida attorney that he had replaced the carpet - had admitted he did this in order to obtain the inflated and defective default judgment. Third, I spoke with Mr. [redacted] by telephone before finalizing the settlement my firm reached with Ms. [redacted]. Notwithstanding Mr. [redacted]'s fraud as noted above, Mr. [redacted] admitted to me that he had leased out his property to a new tenant just a few days after [redacted] vacated the premises and the new tenant had accepted the used carpet as being in acceptable condition.. Mr.. [redacted] failed to provide us with a move-in/move-out condition/inspection report as well. Fourth, based on the above summary, Mr. [redacted] caused our firm to expend additional time I resources and to have to significantly lower the collection. Mr. [redacted] and his wife [redacted] owe our firm not less than $5000.00 for the damages Mr. [redacted] caused us by way of his misrepresentations as summarized above.

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:
By referring to the details of the case here, Mr C[redacted] is probably violating yet another agreement. While I strongly repudiate the disparaging accusations of "misrepresentation" and "fraud", I will only focus on my initial collection agreement with CRI. Here are the facts:
1.) The agreement has these words within it: "CRI shall provide Client with its best efforts to collect any and all judgments Client assigns to CRI for collection ..." and "... call the debtor(s) to use our skills and knowledge to attempt to collect the debt without further legal action., etc."
2.) It DOES NOT state that there is a limit on the number of calls or other communication methods that will be used towards these "best efforts"
3.) I had specifically questioned Mr. C[redacted] before entering into this agreement if the money due back to me would be further reduced beyond the 25% fee and under what circumstances. He responded that any additional cost to me "should not be more than $100-200" and that too only in case legal steps were needed
4.) It was only based on these assertions and the 25% fee that I chose Mr C[redacted] firm over his competitors who I was also evaluating at that time
5.) At no time did Mr C[redacted] insist that based on any revelations in the case he would need to change the terms of the agreement before proceeding with his services.
6.) At no time did Mr C[redacted] insist that based on exceeding the max number of phone calls or emails he would need to change the terms of the agreement before proceeding with his services.
7.) No change in the terms of this agreement was ever mutually agreed upon 
 
Sincerely,
[redacted]

I am rejecting this response because there is nothing to accept in the business's latest response. They keep discussing the contents of the case in violation of the Confidential Agreement. Once again, I can only decline to go into those discussions in accordance with that confidential agreement, while strongly repudiating the extreme and unsubstantiated fabrications. What has also not been explained is: 1. During those supposedly "limitless" phone and email conversations with me why did nobody insist that because of these apparent "developments" in the case there would need to be a modification of my initial agreement with CRI? 2. During those supposedly "limitless" phone and email conversations with me why did nobody insist that some hitherto unspoken "limit" had been reached on the number of phone calls and emails and that this would mean a modification of my initial agreement with CRI? Note that no such modification was ever proposed let alone being mutually agreed upon and executed.