My question involves collection proceedings in the State of: Missouri
So my sister shut off my other sister's phone and then she got a new phone in her own name.
Let's call the sister that was using the phone Sister A and the one that had the phone on her account Sister B.
They had a vocal agreement that Sister B would put the phone in her name and on her account, and that Sister A would pay the monthly fees for it.
The phone was a Galaxy S5, and it was on a payment plan deal, where you pay it off over time.
But when Sister A moved out, Sister B turned her phone off because she wouldn't answer her calls. Sister A then got a new phone in her own name, and Sister B later turned it back on.
Now Sister B is demanding that Sister A pay off the rest of the phone, but I feel that since Sister B violated any agreement they had by turning Sister A's phone off without warning, Sister A shouldn't be legally obligated to pay on it anymore.
Even if Sister A kept the phone and continued paying for it, she'd be running the risk of Sister B turning it off on a whim again since Sister B has it in her account.
As far as I'm aware, there was no written contract, but there would no doubt be plenty of evidence that Sister A was the one using it, and Sprint probably would have record of Sister B turning the phone off.
Am I right?
So my sister shut off my other sister's phone and then she got a new phone in her own name.
Let's call the sister that was using the phone Sister A and the one that had the phone on her account Sister B.
They had a vocal agreement that Sister B would put the phone in her name and on her account, and that Sister A would pay the monthly fees for it.
The phone was a Galaxy S5, and it was on a payment plan deal, where you pay it off over time.
But when Sister A moved out, Sister B turned her phone off because she wouldn't answer her calls. Sister A then got a new phone in her own name, and Sister B later turned it back on.
Now Sister B is demanding that Sister A pay off the rest of the phone, but I feel that since Sister B violated any agreement they had by turning Sister A's phone off without warning, Sister A shouldn't be legally obligated to pay on it anymore.
Even if Sister A kept the phone and continued paying for it, she'd be running the risk of Sister B turning it off on a whim again since Sister B has it in her account.
As far as I'm aware, there was no written contract, but there would no doubt be plenty of evidence that Sister A was the one using it, and Sprint probably would have record of Sister B turning the phone off.
Am I right?
Collection Lawsuits: Sister Turned Off My Other Sister's Phone - is She Obligated to Finish Paying It
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire