I contacted the lawyers for Capital One who issued me a summons for credit card debt. I offered to settle for the principal balance and they were only going to accept full payment, including interest and court costs. I am going to court to answer the summons today, but first I called the lawyers again and asked to see the original contract- they said it was null after 2 yrs and they didn't have it, and if I wanted it I would have to get a lawyer and subpoena it. How should I proceed from here? I read on another post that if they cannot provide the contract then there is no case. Does anyone know about this?

Okay, this is my take, not advice, just my take from my own experience. I was in a position not of my own making, but my husband's, whereby they couldn't come after him because he was still protected by the courts and his settlement with creditors. I asked for proof of their claims that I had signed receipts using my husbands credit card, in actual fact I had proof I never signed for anything because I had every receipt ever issued on that card attached to all the statements. Talk about hoarding files, I am the ultimate hoarder ! I called their bluff and it worked (with my lawyer's sanction).

If it is null after 2 years and they don't have it, then how can you subpeona the document if it doesn't exist. Think about it. Sorry but I don't have any faith in lawyers-acting-as-collectors. In fact, the last collection person I had to deal with had a lawyer in his office, using the same letterhead,

They must produce the original contract your signed, you have the right to compare signatures on the original, if they don't have a contract, than they have no case.

Simply state "I cannot admit or deny the alleged claim without prove of the orignal contract, plaintiff has failed to provide it."

They must produce the original contract your signed, you have the right to compare signatures on the original, if they dont have a contract, thna they have no case.

Simply state "I cannot admit or deny the alleged claim without prove of the orignal contract, plaintiff has failed to provide it."

What would be the original contract, As I have been reading, the credit card application is not a contract, So would they have to submit the actual receipts with my signature? If they can not produce the receipts then there is no contract?

The credit card application, which you sign, agreeingt to their terms and conditions, is a contract.

What would be the original contract, As I have been reading, the credit card application is not a contract, So would they have to submit the actual receipts with my signature? If they can not produce the receipts then there is no contract?


Where have you read that the original agreement/application is not a contract? It's in the small print. First time you use the card you've agreed to the terms.

If you have info to the contrary, please post.

Where have you read that the original agreement/application is not a contract? It's in the small print. First time you use the card you've agreed to the terms.

If you have info to the contrary, please post.

Here is the post you requested, please give me your opinion.



A copy of the alleged credit card application is not a contract. See footnote 3 in the matter of Novack v. Cities Service Oil Co. 374 A.2d 89, 149 N.J.Super. 542 (N.J.Super.Law Div. 04/07/1977)

Here is the post you requested, please give me your opinion.



A copy of the alleged credit card application is not a contract. See footnote 3 in the matter of Novack v. Cities Service Oil Co., 374 A.2d 89, 149 N.J.Super. 542 (N.J.Super.Law Div. 04/07/1977)


The argument in this particular case is NOT about the validity of the credit card debt. The argument concerns one specific purchase made on the credit card.

The "alleged" application is also the problem - it would appear from a cursory reading that the original contract could not be produced.